Towards a History of the Third International (Part III)

[p048] Towards a history of the Third International (Part Ill) 3 tween the productive forces and contracting mar- kets and sharpened dangers of wars between the imperialist states or against the Soviet Union. It was taken to offer great new _ revolutionary opportunities and therefore imposed upon: : the Communist Parties a sharp left turn in the form, particularly, of a struggle against the Social Demo- cratic parties, already labelled as ‘social fascists’ at the Ninth Plenum of the Executive Committee in February 1928. The theory of ‘social fascism’ led to the conclusion that the social-democratic movement was no longer part of the working class. If there was no difference between a regime in which the social-democratic leaders joined the government and one dominated by a fascist party, then it would be difficult in practice to define fascism. It assumed that there could be a form of fascism in which the labour movement, especially the social democracy, continued to exist. Still more important, in practical terms, it was impossible to break the working class from re- formist leaders by the so-called ‘united front’ from below by designating them as ‘social fascists’. It gave the reformists the opportunity to move closer to their own bourgeoisie while denouncing the Communists as splitters. These new tactics of the ‘third period’ proved to be a disastrous failure, especially in Germany; they led the party into adventures including, at times, a form of alliance with the Nazis against the Social Democracy and into isolation from that majority section of the working class which continued to follow reformist leadership. short-term funds. When these were withdrawn following the Wall Street crash the consequences for the German economy were disastrous. Un- employment, insecurity ahd poverty became the lot of millions of workers. The middle classes, already embittered and partly ruined by the in- flation of the early 1920s, were once again con- fronted with impoverishment and sought any remedy, however desperate, to escape such a fate. For a number of years a series of crisis governments grappled unsuccessfully with the situation as Germany tottered closer to civil war. By maintaining the slogans and tactics of the so-called ‘third period’ the German Communist Party proved incapable of seizing the very real revolutionary possibilities which were presented in the early 1930s. In a series of brilliant articles 41

[p049] Nikolai Bukharin : main figure at the Sixt Congress soon to’be in disgrace and pamphlets Trotsky castigated the suicidal course thrust upon the Party by the Comintern. The victory of the Nazis, backed by the masters of heavy industry and all the most reactionary forces in German society, was by no means inevit- able. The German working class was the largest and by far the best organized on the Continent of Europe. It had the oldest traditions of Marxist theory and organization. It was no use simply condemning the role of the reformist leaders and still more futile, as well as factually wrong, to describe them as ‘social fascists’. The key to the situation lay in the hands of the Communist Party. By a correct united front policy, with its great influence over large sections of advanced workers and youth, backed by the prestige of the Soviet Union and if necessary by its material support, it could have brought the whole working class into action against the advancing brown tide of Nazism and won allies from sections of the middle class and peasantry. Instead, the ultra- left adventurism of the ‘third period’, while look- ing very revolutionary, brought division and con- fusion to the working class which in the end went down to defeat without a fight. Its leaders and militants were killed, imprisoned or forced into exile while the masses were terrorized by storm- troops and concentration camps. After the legal coming to power of the Nazis the great organizations built up by the German proletariat over many decades were completely and thoroughly crushed. An all-enveloping appara- tus of propaganda was turned towards eliminat- ing all traces of Marxism from the consciousness Meanwhile this bureaucracy and its functionaries in the Comintern were also digesting the lessons of the German experiences. The victory of fascism in the most industrially advanced European 42 4 of the working class as a complement to the physical terror. . The defeat of the German working class was sudden and more complete than had been ex- pected by the Communist leaders. Operating with a false theory of fascism they even sanguinely expected that after a brief experience with Nazi government their chances of gaining power would be improved. Some, undoubtedly, from. what little evidence there is, had qualms all along about the tactical turn required by the Sixth Congress and imposed by the organs of the Comintern in the following years. It was significant that many of the German Communists who took refuge in the Soviet Union were sooner or later to be liquidated by Stalin’s orders (some even handed over to the Gestapo in 1941). They knew too much, and were a living reproach to the architect of the biggest defeat in the history of the Euro- pean working class whose effects are still visible, and not only in Germany itself, more than a generation later. In the years after 1933 the usual Communist explanation for the German defeat was to blame it on the Social-Democracy. Instead of a rigorous examination of the tactics pursued and how they led to defeat, a few remarks were made about the mistakes of Neumann or other German Communist leaders. Trotsky’s warnings went almost unheeded. After all, the Comintern was waging an all-out campaign against Trotskyism throughout these years. The supporters of the Left Opposition in Germany, few in number, thus found it difficult to gain a hearing from members of the Communist Party. They were, in any case, mainly young, with little experience of politics and no roots in the working class. From the lessons of Germany, however, Trotsky derived the conclusion that it was no longer possible to expect that the Communist Parties or the Comin- tern could be reformed from within. The defeat and betrayal of 1933 was an historical turning point as significant as the vote of war credits by the Social Democratic Parties in August 1914, It thus required a whole re-appraisal of the strategy of the Left Opposition. It was now neces- sary to prepare for the construction of a new Marxist International completely independent of the Stalinist bureaucracy and in political opposi- tion to it. country confronted the Soviet Union with the threat of a war spearheaded by German Nazism. It also opened up, at the same time, the prospect of fascist take-overs in a number of other coun- Fourth International, Summer 1969

[p050] Heinz Neumann: a few remarks about his mistakes tries in which social antagonisms were deepening. While there is some evidence that Stalin was seeking an understanding with Nazi Germany in the period after the accession of Hitler to power this proved impossible to bring about and Russian foreign policy thus sought to make defence agreements and pacts with the Western powers and began to support the League of Nations. The crucial step was the defence pact with the French government, whose premier at the time was Laval, in 1935, and Stalin’s declaration approving French military preparations made at the time. From then on the bureaucracy explicitly recog- nized that it understood defence of the Soviet Union to depend upon alliances with bourgeois states and manoeuvres in the League of Nations rather than upon working-class solidarity and revolutionary struggle. At the Seventh Congress, in 1935, Togliatti (Ercoli), who had now made him- It is impossible to follow out in detail the process by which the left adventurism of the ‘third period’ became the right opportunism of the Popular Front without knowing much more about the inner history of the Comintern than the available evidence reveals. It is only through published articles and documents and shifts in policy on the part of national Communist Parties that the outward signs cah be followed until the new line was finally endorsed at the Seventh Congress in 1935, It would be interesting to know, for example, how a man like Togliatti silenced his doubts about Stalin and reconciled his fears that the intention was to allow the Comintern virtually to disappear with his appearance a few years later as the most sophisticated advocate of the new line. As he was an exile from a country dominated by fascism it could not have been the national social base which was determinant. If Tog- liatto threw in his lot with the bureaucracy and abandoned classic principles of Marxism-Leninism there must have been certain reasons affecting his convictions which must be taken into account. Togliatti, after all, was only one of the most Towards a history of the Third International (Part Ill) self the most accomplished casuist in Stalin’s employ, provided a lengthy justification for the change of front. According to him ‘we see ever more clearly defined in Europe a group of capi- talist states, dominated and directed by the most bellicose and reactionary forces, who are directly interested in an immediate outbreak of war in general and, in particular of a war directed against the Soviet Union. [This part was emphasized in the published report.] On the other hand, a group is appearing consisting of capitalist countries which for the most part have preserved a parlia- mentary regime and which are more or less in- terested in the preservation of peace’. In other words there were warlike capitalist states and peace-loving (‘more or less’) capitalist states. With the latter alliances and pacts could be made. If there were peaceloving capitalist states with which peaceful co-existence could be pursued it followed that there were, inside these countries, elements in the bourgeoisie with which the Com- munist Parties could make political alliances. Hence they were encouraged to seek broad alli- ances of all ‘anti-fascist forces’ and to make ‘the struggle against fascism and war’ the centre- piece of all their activities. outstanding of a generation which set out to be genuine Marxist revolutionaries and ended up as accomplished sophists defending every twist and ‘turn of Stalinist politics. Some factors in this transformation may be suggested for discussion and investigation. Firstly, there was attachment to the cause of the October Revolution and _ belief that the first consideration should be the defence of its conquests against the predatory designs of Nazi Germany. These people convinced them- selves that in the face of these great dangers the revolutionary struggle in the countries of bour- geois democracy had to be called off for the time being. Secondly, in their speeches and writ- ings, the Comintern spokesmen, like Togliatti, Thorez and Dimitrov, conserved a revolutionary phraseology and presented the new line as a tactical turn within the long-term strategy of a revolution for world communism. Except insofar as they may have become hardened cynics and opportunists on the purely personal level, if they conserved any real attachment to Marxism it could only have been along these lines. For many party leaders and for the militants in the party— at least until new layers were recruited specifically 43

[p051] Palmiro Togliatti threw in his lot with the bureaucracy abandoning Marxism- Leninism on the propaganda and policy of the Popular Front —the same reasoning must have applied. The Seventh Congress, held in 1935, might be described as Stalin’s show congress. Almost without any regard even for the immediate past the Communist International was launched on its new course. Georgi Dimitrov ,hero of the Reich- stag fire trial, gave the main report, flanked by reports almost as long by Togliatti (Ercoli), Manuilsky, Thorez and others. In the previous year or so a number of national parties had been moving on to the new line. In fact, only in France had any real success been attained, largely, no doubt, as a result of the temporary concordance of Stalin’s foreign policy interests with those of the Stalin took no more part in the Seventh Con- gress that he had done at the previous one. Prob- ably he regarded the Comintern with contempt, but he exacted from the speakers and delegates an adulation never previously accorded to a living personality in the working-class movement. This reached its peak in the speech of Manuilsky devoted to Engels which was, in fact, designed to show Stalin as the true theoretical continuator of Marx, Engels and Lenin, thanks primarily to the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ which was, of course, the theoretical foundation of the German debacle as well as of the popular front policy to which it led. After enumerating Stalin’s other ‘con- tributions’ to Marxism, Manuilsky added with unconsciously grisly humour: ‘And the Bolshe- viks, led by Stalin, turned all these theoretical propositions of Stalin into flesh and blood.’ In fact, within the next year or two, most of the remaining flesh and blood Bolsheviks in Russia, not excepting many loyal functionaries of the 44 6 French ruling class as shown by the pact of 1935. Hence the particular importance of Thorez’s re- port, entitled The Successes of the Anti-Fascist United Front. He showed how the French Com- munist Party had taken the initiative in bringing together various left parliamentary groups and organizing a number of mass demonstrations of a popular front character. In the new spirit of casuistry which reigned in the Communist leadership he tried to show that support for the Laval pact did not mean support for the class policy of the French bourgeoisie. As befitted the politician who was later to exult in the title of ‘the leading Stalinist in France’, Thorez concluded his speech with the following words: ‘We know that the battle will be hard, but we are sure of victory and we do not fear to breast the tumul- tuous waves at Dimitrov’s summons since the helm of our ship is in the firm hands of the greatest of pilots, our dear and great Stalin’. This record of his speech helped to establish the one-time secret sympathizer with the Left Opposition as an internationally renowned leader. Presenting himself in France as a rugged, prole- tarian ‘Son of the People’, Thorez went on to further successes of the same sort-——helping the Blum government to power with Communist votes, bringing to an end the sit-down strikes of May- June 1936 and extending an outstretched hand to the Church. Comintern, were to be liquidated in the blood purges. In fact, the terror turned against the Trotskyists and others suspected of opposition to Stalin was the necessary corallary to the new line, a guarantee to the bourgeoisie whose alliance Stalin now sought. Now, more than ever, in the period after the Seventh Congress the line was laid down and applied by the national parties with little or no discussion and only the adaptations required by the circumstances of the country concerned. In fact, and this was one of the attractions of the new line, the national leaderships now had, in practice, more independence than before (and no doubt,. more freedom from criticism from the Stalintern representative or from Moscow itself), in working out the details of national policy. The new line accorded with the opportunist bent of most of the party leaders. They could talk re- volution while pursuing a policy which could give no offence to bourgeois liberals. Dropping much Fourth International, Summer 1969

[p052] Maurice Thorez : ‘the helm of our ship is in the hands of... our dear and great Stalin’ of the old Comintern jargon which had gone with the ‘third period’ they could now speak with national accents. Communists caimed to be the staunchest defenders of national traditions, wrapped themselves in their respective national flags and began to sing the national anthem jointly with the bourgeoisie. The great figures of the bourgeois revolution were appropriated as fore- runners of Marxism. The Americans named their party school after the plantation land-owner and slave-owner, Jefferson. The French paid respects to the cult of Robespierre, who sent the left-wing agitators of the French Revolution to the scaffold and made it a capital offence to advocate the division of landed property. History was distorted to make it permissible to support the so-called ‘national’ or ‘democratic’ bourgeoisie in the less developed capitalist countries such as Spain. A wholesale prostitution of Marxism took place in which, in time, major theoretical questions could be decided by a chance remark of Stalin. The Seventh Congress, in short, represented To return to the Seventh Congress, it really marked the end of the Comintern as an interna- tional organization. It lingered on through its agencies in Moscow but interchange between national parties became purely formal; the only real traffic was between the national parties and Moscow. ‘Internationalism’ meant absolute fidelity to Stalin’s policies. The speeches made in 1935 were funeral orations over a body which had long since died: the defeat of the German Communist Party had been its real death-blow. The historian who seeks to write the story of the Comintern after 1935 is beset by a serious lack of information—which is locked away in the archives in Moscow or in those of the national CP, or has perhaps been destroyed. There are Towards a history of the Third International (Part Ill) 7 the final abandonment of a revolutionary struggle for power as the objective of the Communist Parties. In its place came national policies de- signed to bring to power or support governments whose policies would counter the threat from Nazi Germany and thus, ostensibly, assist in ‘de- fending’ the Soviet Union. Thus the emphasis was on ‘anti-fascism’ and what was described as ‘the struggle against war’. This did not mean that all the old phraseology was discarded; it still had a purpose in attracting to the Communist Party those workers seeking a revolutionary way out of the crisis. The greater independence of the local leaderships on certain national political questions was coupled with the requirement of absolute and unswerving allegiance to the Stalinist bureaucracy on everything else. This fidelity became a touch- stone for Communist leadership. The selective process begun in the late 1920s had now brought into the leadership of the national parties a cadre which owed its position to this fidelity. The new leading cadre often had received its basic theo- retical training in the Lenin School maintained by the Comintern in Moscow or in party courses organized at home. It was thus axiomatic that Stalinism was the Marxism of the day. Most of the so-called Marxism which found a receptive echo in the ranks of the intelligentsia in the 1930s was this Stalinist version, which reached its finished form, complete with Stalin’s interpreta- tion of dialectical and historical materialism, in the famous Short History of the CPSU, first issued in 1939, which became the party textbook through- out the world. the various accounts of defectors, but they are not of the first rank and they have their own axes to grind. One tends, therefore, to fall back upon the published sources; the periodicals, publica- tions and documents of the Communist Interna- tional or of its national sections. Therein lies the problem and a major paradox already referred to. Those historians who pursue this method come up with an obvious but facile conclusion. Let us take for examination the thesis of Kermite McKenzie, an American scholar, in a book en- titled Comintern and World Revolution published in 1964. Speaking of the Seventh Congress, he claims that ‘the novel features of the new patterns of strategy and tactics could well create erroneous 45

[p053] Andre Marty (extreme left) in company with Duclos (centre) and Thorez (right) sincerely believed in his own propaganda impressions. Some observers of the world com- munist movement made a _ mistake respecting means—and believed that the Comintern now was adopting a programme of peaceful, democratic evolution towards Commuhism. Other observers made a mistake respecting ends—and believed that the Comintern had abandoned the idea of struggle for world Communism. A careful reading of the report of the Seventh Congress as well as of Comintern literature of the next four years, re- veals that the Comintern still insisted upon the necessity of a violent overthrow of capitalism by means of a Communist-led revolution and the erection of a Communist dictatorship, and still re- tained as its fundamental goal the establishment of world Communism’ (p. 158). In other words, he is maintaining that neither the means nor the ends had changed: the Seventh Congress simply permitted greater flexibility in tactics and pro- gramme. According to this type of argument the Popular Front terminology was intended to deceive the innocent. According to the run-of-the-mill Communist conspiracy argument the real aims still remained seizure of power by violent means, establishment of a proletarian dictatorship sub- ordinate to Russia and so on. McKenzie claims that ‘The Comintern never gave up the struggle for the transformation of the world that it had begun in 1919’. There was thus, in his view, essential continuity between the International of Lenin and Trotsky and that of Stalin and Dimitrov. This conclusion is essen- tially formalistic in that it rests (as he admits) on printed documents—which are then interpreted in The period of the application of the line of the Seventh Congress was one of crushing defeats for the working class and the frenetic preparation 46 8 a particular way, certain declarations about re- volutionary intent or objective being taken at their face value. The historian can hardly proceed in such a way. One can imagine, for example, what results it would give if applied to the Euro- pean social-democratic parties or even the British Labour Party, which continued to include declarations about socialism in their programmes long after they had abandoned all intention of carrying them out. The contradiction is clearest in the case of some of the socialist or social- democratic parties which went on instructing their members in Marxism of a sort as late as the 1950s. In fact, of course, there were reasons why the Communist movement continued to profess re- volutionary pretensions when its practice had be- come counter-revolutionary. The historian has to examine what Communist parties did in pre-revolu- tionary situations and see how their actions squared with the words in the documents or the principles to which allegiance was proclaimed on ceremonial occasions. World history since 1935 is rich in such examples: Spain and France in 1936-1937 and, from 1944 to 1947 Fraice, Italy, Belgium, Greece, etc., not to speak of more recent ones. Here were cases where revolutionary be- ginnings were stifled in the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy which felt its own position menaced by revolutionary outbreaks anywhere in the world. Many faithful Communist Party members be- lieved, and some still believe, in the revolutionary pretensions of the leadership. Some of the leaders themselves may sincerely believe in their own propaganda as, for example, André Marty appar- ently did until the conflict with Thorez which led to his expulsion from the French Communist Party. But the fact that many revolutionary workers and intellectuals, or even party leaders, were deluded, or deluded themselves, cannot change the objective record. The fact is that under Stalin’s direction the Comintern was de- stroyed and ceased to be a revolutionary workers’ international in the 1930s however many of the trapping of the past it still preserved. And the time was to come, as will be seen, when even these trappings became an embarrassment and had to be discarded. of the imperialist countries for the Second World War. These defeats, and the growing fear of war, spread demoralization and raised false hopes of Fourth International, Summer 1969

[p054] Willi Munzenberg : successful propagandist died a mysterious death some short cut to peace through class collabora- tion in Popular Fronts and by ‘collective security’. All this was grist to the Stalinist mill. The Com- munist Parties successfully created for them- selves a new image in the eyes of the middle strata and the liberal bourgeois politicians and journalists by becoming the vanguard of the ‘anti- fascist’ peace forces. On the same _ basis they attracted, for the first time, a numerous following among the intelligentsia, and a plethora of books and magazines carried their purportedly Marxist ideas and policies into wide circles of the popu- lation. Campaigns were waged on an international scale using modern techniques of propaganda and publicity. The inspiring genius behind much of this activity was the German Willi Munzenberg, a former leader of the Young Communist Interna- tional, who, before his exile, successfully built up a popular Communist Party press in Germany. He had a good deal to do with the establishment of the many front organizations which were organized in the 1930s. Later he broke with Stalin- ism and died in mysterious circumstances in France in 1940. The popular front policy made it possible to build up a very wide periphery of sympathizers in all strata of society. The wide ramification of Communist Party influence was, of course, the basis for the McCarthyite campaign in the United States after the War and the investigations of the House Un-American Activities Committee. But there was hever a ‘Communist conspiracy’ in the sense which the witch-hunters sought to prove. Instead there was a wide but loose association of people more or less influenced by the popular front type propaganda which, in any case, had begun to break up as far back as the 1930s when the effects of the Moscow Trials began to show. On paper, as it were, the Communist Parties in the countries where legal activity was still possible, could show considerable gains. But these parties had long since ceased to be revolutionary. Around them were built up various layers of supporters. There were the wealthy ‘angels’ who contributed to party funds and helped make possible more lavish outlays in all directions than could be Towards a history of the Third International (Part Ill) financed from membership dues or whatever sub- sidies found their way from Russia in one form or another. There were the much more numerous ‘fellow travellers’ of various degrees of innocence who formed the backbone of the front organiza- tions and operated the party line in others. Another species were the ‘friends’, attracted by the glowing picture of the Soviet Union presented in the official propaganda or impressed by what they saw on a conducted Intourist tour. They included such figures as the Dean of Canterbury, who were close to the Stalinist leadership, and the famous Fabian couple, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, whose large tome on Soviet Communism a New Civilization was a monument over the methodology which had inspired a lifetime of mis-directed research. Such people served a use- ful purpose. They could be brandished as trophies by publicists like Palme Dutt and used as a cover for Stalin’s crimes. The Communist Parties increased their mem- berships, successfully built a new image and be- came to some degree politically acceptable in bourgeois parliaments and reformist trade unions. The politics with which they operated in day-to- day work were actually to the right of many social- democratic and reformist and centrist politicians. The search for alliances with ‘anti-fascists’ and ‘peace-loving’ bourgeois made the Communist Party a conservative force, above all in revolu- tionary situations as in Spain. The growth of the Spanish Communist Party during the Civil War came largely from middle-class recruits and less class-conscious workers attracted by the fact that it seemed to be the most energetic defender of the Republic and upholder of the authority of the army and the police, and not from revolu- tionary workers. At the same time, the new sort of Communist Party proved to be a powerful magnet for the centrist trends which, earlier in the 1930s, appeared to be breaking from Social Demo- cracy and, in some cases, moving towards the Fourth International. Thus parties like the ILP in Britain, members of the so-called London Bureau, participated in United Front and Popular Front campaigns which were effectively under Communist Party leadership and stilled their criticism of Stalinism. A whole school of politi- cians from the same camp, or from the left wing of the Social Democracy, now lent their pens to writing apologies for the Soviet bureaucracy. Those who had attacked the Bolshevik Revolution from 1917 onwards and had pursued Lenin and Trotsky with their criticisms now found much to 47

[p055] praise in Stalin, the realist, at the very time when the Moscow Trials and purges were reaching their crescendo. The task of the Left Opposition was thus made all the more urgent and at the same time doubly difficult. As mentioned, very soon after the German events Trotsky came to the conclusion that the time had come for a break with the Comintern and the organization of a new revolutionary vanguard. Not only the German de- feat, but the unwillingness in the following months to consider its causes and discuss them before the In dealing with the history of the Comintern in its final 15 years we are dealing with an organi- zation which would have been unrecognizable to its founders and was repudiated by its greatest living representative. In the purges, moreover, Stalin was picking off a series of old Bolsheviks and revolutionaries who had devoted much of their political activity to building the Communist International: Zinoviev, Bukharin, Bela Kun, the fiirst German delegate from the Spartakusbund, Hugo Eberein, and many others. Whole parties, whose main leaders were in exile in Russia, were destroyed: the Polish Party, the Yugoslav Party; many of the Germans and Spaniards also ‘dis- appeared’ in the 1930s. The complete record would include many of the delegates to the Congresses of the Comintern, many of the officials who for years had bent their spines to Stalin. Of those who were purged some were killed in short order, others imprisoned for years or sent to labour camps. Only a handful, like Victor Serge or Ciliga, lived to tell the tale. Historically speaking there can be absolutely no doubt that the only interest in the final years of the Comintern lies in its role as an instrument of Stalin’s foreign policy. It is a story which will not be told in detail here. The fact is that in the summer of 1939 Stalin decided that the kind of defence of the Soviet Union which he under- stood made it necessary to come to an arrange- ment with Hitler. The same methods of secret diplomacy which were being used in negotiation with the British and French were simultaneously having greater success with Hitler’s envoys. The Communist Parties, whose role for years had in fact been to prepare the working class for a so-called ‘anti-fascist war’ alongside their own 48 9 membership, had proved this. The period between 1933 to 1938, as the degeneration of the Third In- ternational continued, was also one of great historical importance, the period of intensive pre- paration for the foundation of the Fourth. The Left Opposition now became ah independent or- ganization, which, small as it was numerically, carried on its shoulders the heritage of the Com- munist International founded by Lenin and Trotsky. bourgeoisie against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, were suddenly, without any warning or pre- paration, confronted with a situation in which their propaganda had become obsolete and the existing line an embarrassment. Not surprisingly, the slow-minded leaders, like Harry Pollitt in Britain, took some time to adjust to the new situation. Once new instructions came through and the shape of the line required by Stalin was dis- cerned the necessary adjustments were made. The outbreak of the war which quickly fol- lowed the signature of the pact between Stalin and Hitler created a wholly new and unexpected situation for the Communist Parties. Many of the fellow-travellers and friends quickly whirled off with great shrieks about betrayal. As in a number of countries the party was driven under- ground or subjected to intense pressure from the bourgeoisie, loyalty kept the majority of members behind the leadership, despite the sudden changes in policy. Through the early part of the Second World War the Comihtern’s role was to formulate the new line and convey it to the sections. There is no need here to analyse this phase which co- incided, of course, with the partition of Poland, the Finnish War, the capitulation of France and the German occupation of Western Europe. It was possible to turn up quotations from Lenin about turning imperialist war into civil war and ‘revolutionary defeatism’ to justify a hard line, although the main weight of party activity was placed behind the demand for a negotiated peace. Once the Nazi conquest of Western Europe had been completed, and thus the relative weight of Germany compared with that of the Soviet Union had consistently increased, a new and Fourth International, Summer 1969

[p056] Nazi-Stalin pact : created a wholly new and unexpected situation for the Communist parties dangerous situation arose in Eastern Europe. We now know that the Nazis were preparing the drive to the East from about the summer of 1940; we also know that the preparations made in the Soviet Union were lagging. In the course of 1941 a shift in emphasis appears in the Comin- tern line and then, with the Nazi attack in June, and the alliance with Britain which followed, an entirely new policy of complete support for the war effort in the Allied territories and for the resistance movement in occupied Europe became mandatory for the Communist Parties. 10 Once the Soviet Union was engaged in an alliance first with Britain and then with the United States the existence of the Communist International, however formal it had now become, was an obstacle to closer understanding. Its dis- solution was only a matter of time, and, for that matter, had also a mainly formal character. It was the intention behind the deed as publicly ex- pressed which was important. Thus, in examining the document which announced the end of the Comintern it must also be asked: was what was said meant? Needless to say, there was no prior discussion in the sections before the decision was made. And, although put forward in the first place as a ‘Proposal for Dissolution’ it was accepted every- where without question and articles were quickly written to approve it. The main argument for dissolution, obviously for the benefit of party members, was that: ‘the organizational form for uniting the workers chosen by the First Congress of the Communist International and which corres- ponded to the needs of the initial period of the re-birth of the working-class movement, has more and more become out-grown by the movement’s development and by the increasing complexity of its problems in the separate countries, and has even become a hindrance to the further strengthen- ing of the national working-class parties’. In other words, ‘socialism in one country’ means the sub- stitution of separate national ‘roads to socialism’ for an international struggle. But the ‘deep dif- ferences in the historic paths of development of the various countries of the world’ and various other differences which the document notes be- tween countries had always existed. If used as a basis for dissolving the Communist International in 1943 they could very well have been used against ever establishing an International, whether in 1864, 1889 (the Second) or 1919. The document thus provided an endorsement for theories of national exceptionalism which had Towards a history of the Third International (Part II1) circulated in the Communist Parties, particularly in North America and the Anglo-Saxon coun- tries, for some time. Earl Browder, in the United States, seized the occasion actually to dissolve the Communist Party (which had already publicly disaffliated from the International) and re-form it as a ‘Communist Political Association’. In fact, this was a logical course which followed from the ~ completely un-Marxist arguments used to justify the dissolution. Capitalist countries were seen as separate entities, not as countries with a particular relationship to the world market. Thus it could be assumed that each would become ripe for social- ism at different times, strung out over an historic- ally extended period which might last for cen- turies, and necessarily involving the co-existence of capitalist and ‘socialist’ countries. So far as there was any theory worth speaking of in this document it was wholly in keeping with Stalin’s previous ‘contributions’ to Marxism and was of the same brand as that which still passes current in the present-day Communist Parties. Of course, in 1943 it was impossible to speak of ‘peaceful co-existence’ because one part of capi- talism was actually waging a desperate aggressive war against the October Revolution’s conquests. But Stalin thus needed all the more to establish good relations with the capitalist countries whose interests were also mortally threatened by Nazi Germany and its allies. Thus the Comintern, in its last message to the world working class, called not only for the defeat of the forces threatening the Soviet Union but stated that, ‘in the countries of the anti-Hitlerite coalition, the sacred duty of the broadest masses of the people, and first and foremost of the progressive workers, is to support in every way the war efforts of the governments of these countries aimed at the speediest destruc- tion of the Hitlerite bloc, and to ensure friendly collaboration between the nations on the basis of equal rights’. [Emphasis added—T.K.] In other words, in support for bourgeois governments (i.e., 49

[p057] the Churchill coalition, Roosevelt, the govern- ments-in-exile led by de Gaulle and an assortment of monarchists and nondescript politicians, anti- communist to a man) the Comintern went much further than Harry Pollitt had gone in 1939— since he did actually call for a change of govern- ment to wage the war more effectively! It must be accorded, however, that Communist Parties, like that in Great Britain, had not waited for this declaration to throw their weight behind the war effort. To peruse today the files of a journal like Labour Monthly for the years from August 1941 (the line changed too quickly after June 21 to get in the next issue), is to be plunged into a world in which party work and war work are interchangeable terms. Palme Dutt purveys strategic advice to the Grand Coalition and his acolytes dispense, at a lower level, the prescrip- tions which all needed to work and fight harder behind their own government and to prepare to make a success of what was called ‘post-war planning’. The Communist Parties, nurtured into existence in the early years of the Comintern, in- tended to break sharply with the reformist parties which had disgraced themselves by their support for the policies of their ‘own’ bourgeoisies in 1914, had come full circle. Flaunting their ignorance or willingness to distort history the authors of the Proposal for Dissolution compared the move with that taken by Marx in dissolving the First International when they claimed that as a result of the matured situation for creating national workers’ mass parties ‘this form of organization no longer cor- responded to the needs of the situation’. In fact, as is well known, Marx wound up the First In- ternational in the period of reaction which fol- lowed the defeat of the Paris Commune in order to prevent it coming under the control of anarchist elements hostile to working-class organization. The dissolution in this case was preparatory to the later re-constitution of the International on a higher level. The action of the Presidium of the Comintern in dissolving the organization could receive no sanction from Marx’s behaviour in 1872 or from any accepted canon of Marxism. The Presidium was actually making a declaration of its final break with Marxist internationalism TI It is clear to all that the Comintern declaration, followed within a few weeks by the appointment of a committee ‘to wind up the affairs, dissolve the organs and dispose of the staff and property 50 and, more fundamentally, with the Marxist analysis of captalism as a world system. The for- mation of the workers’ internationals had never been a question of abstract solidarity, but a neces- sary way of pursuing the struggle against a system which was, and remained, world-wide. The first article of the Statutes of the Communist International, adopted at the Second Congress, stated: The New International Association of workers is founded for the purpose of organizing joint action of the proletariat of different countries, aiming at a single and identical goal, viz., the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of an international republic of soviets which will make it possible completely to abolish classes and bring about socialism, the first stage of communist society. But according to the Presidium, each national working class was now to find its own way to socialism, either by supporting its bourgeoisie in the war effort if that ruling class happened to be a ‘freedom-loving’ bourgeoisie, or by under- ground struggle against it if it had gone over to fascism. As the Manifesto issued by the Fourth Interna- tional pointed out at the time: ‘The unevenness of development of economy and the workers’ movement in the various countries, far from being an argument against internationalism, was one of the main reasons insisted upon by Lenin and Trotsky for the establishment of the Third Inter- national. They never tired of stressing the mutual need which the proletariat of advanced capitalist countries and the peoples of the colonies have for each other—the workers of Britain and the masses of India, the US proletariat and the toilers of Latin America, etc.—in their common struggle against the imperialist overlords’. This is the authentic voice of international Marxism. But what did the Comintern line mean for the national and colonial strugges? The example of India was eloquent. The Communist Party of India become the only section of the national liberation move- ment to support the British war effort, with the result that its chances of winning influence over the masses and preparing for power were im- measurably reduced. of the Communist International’, was intended to re-assure Stalin’s allies that he did not intend to support the revolutionary movement in Europe after the war. Certainly, then, this prepared the Fourth International, Summer 1969

[p058] way for the Yalta and Potsdam agreements which envisaged Four-Power unity and a division of Europe into spheres of influence for an indefinite period after the defeat of Nazi Germany. It was also an indication that there was no intention of promoting revolution in the colonial and semi- colonial countries, particularly those of Asia after the defeat of Japan—not even in China, because Chiang Kai-shek was a junior partner in the diplomatic arrangements preparatory to the ending of the war. The fact that:in all these respects Stalin kept his word is an index, if one is required, that the dissolution of the Comintern was not just a manoeuvre intended to deceive. The example of Yugoslavia, where for a long time the Russians refused .to support the Tito partisan movement against the Chetniks and the Germans, provides further proof. The leaders of the Western capital- ist countries were not children in these matters. No doubt they did not trust Stalin or the Rus- Sians as far as any agreements were concerned; they were not simply taken in. A bargain was tacitly made and for a time it was kept. If rela- tions between the Western powers and Russia rapidly deteriorated after the end of the war it was not because the Russians were fomenting revo- lution or that the Comintern had been kept in existence in a clandestine way: it was the result of a clash between incompatible social systems. Of course, the international contacts between the Russian party and the national Communist Parties did not cease. It went without saying that the leadership of these parties, even without the Comintern, pursued policies—especially in the in- ternational field—which harmonized with the needs of the Soviet bureaucracy and continued to do so until quite recently. Even the formation of the Communist Information Bureau in 1947, to which belonged the East European and the important West European Parties, in no way represented a reincarnation of the Comintern, even the Comin- tern in its degenerate post-1928 form. It was, like the latter, a means whereby the political line determined by the Soviet bureaucracy was passed on to the trusted leaders of these parties. But it never bothered to restore the formal apparatus of Congresses, Plenums, Statutes, Resolutions and so on which had been inherited from the early years when the Comintern had been a living body and which survived its political demise as an in- ternational of revolution. What did survive, then, were the continued links between the leaders of the national parties and the hierarchy of the Soviet Party. Most of Towards a history of the Third International (Part Ill) these leaders had been selected and, trained in the 1930s and were committed to support every turn of Soviet policy. In a sense, they did not receive ‘orders from Moscow’ because their re- flexes were the same as those of the Soviet bureau- cracy: their ideological assumptions had been formed in the Stalin school. From the Seventh Congress onwards, in fact, while their connection with the Soviet bureaucracy was preserved and took the form of complete fidelity to Soviet policy they also put down increasingly deep roots in the national soil. That was an inevitable con- sequence of the theory of socialism in one coun- try as spelt out in terms of the Popular Front and, in the post-war years, in the various ‘national’ roads to socialism. Thus the Communist leader- ship, especially where it was in command of mass parties, built upon the post-war versions of popu- lar frontism and strongly committed to the so- called national ‘roads to socialism’, became deeply involved in the institutional life of bourgeois society. In parliament, in the municipalities and in the trade unions, through the press and various other organizations, the basis was created for a party bureaucracy resembling in almost all par- ticulars the old-established reformist bureaucracy. It is true that the Communist Parties in France, Italy and a few other countries where they had influence, were more centralized and more dis- ‘ciplined. But even these characteristics which, originally, had been necessary for revolutionary organization had now turned into their opposite. They were simply a means for consolidating the power of the bureaucratic apparatus, stifling dis- sent and any expression of independent thought. The national Communist Party bureaucracies, in the parties where they had mass support, were thus able to establish an independent national base in the labour movement. There remained a necessary bond of common origin, mutual sup- port and virtual identity of interest with the Russian bureaucracy making. possible a_har- monious working relationship which lasted through to the death of Stalin. From about that time, and then accelerated first by the events of 1956 and the Twentieth Congress and subsequently by the Sino-Soviet conflict, the trend which some bourgeois observers rather inaccurately described as ‘polycentrism’ became apparent. On many im- portant issues wide differences began to appear be- tween the views of the national party leadership and the Soviet bureaucracy. The process set going in the 1930s by the Seventh Congress and en- couraged by the theory behind the dissolution of the Comintern was now working itself out in ways 51

[p059] _ Potsdam: (I. to r.} Attlee, Truman and S| Yalta: (i. to r.) Churchill, Roosevelt and §S which the Soviet bureaucracy had not suspected. The condemnation of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in August 1968, by a number of the most important parties outside the Soviet Union, is the most striking example to date of the break-up of the remaining semblance of an international line in the world Communist move- ment. It has now become increasingly difficult to bring the parties together, let alone to reach agree- ment on basic political questions. These tendencies are further proof of the de- generation of the Stalinist movement, but they represent no more than the working out of pro- cesses which began 40 or more years ago. As has been shown in these articles the heritage of the first four Congresses of the Communist Interna- tional, founded by Lenin and Trotsky, is carried on not by the parties which describe themselves as Communist—which in 1943 repudiated even the forms of revolutionary internationalism which remained—but by the Fourth International. which remained—but by the Fourth International. Indeed, it is only from this standpoint that a full and objective history of the international move- ment can, and one day will, be written. 52 This is a polemic against Radek in 1928. the arguments against his pre-war theory of the permanent revolution (as expounded in Results and Prospects) and takes up the history of his differences with Lenin before 1917, of which Stalin and his henchmen made so much. Trotsky shows that it was Lenin’s criticisms of his attitude to the centralised Marxist party, which he afterwards understood and accepted, that kept them apart. and not their differences on the permanent revolution. 254 pages, 15/- soft cover, 25/- hard cover NEW PARK PUBLICATIONS LTD., 186A CLAPHAM HIGH ST., LONDON, S.W.4 Trotsky examines Fourth International, Summer: 1969

[p060] LIMITED PUBLICATIONS PARK NEW 7029 S.W.4 London, Street, High Clapham 186A MACaulay List Book Free for Write Essential Marxist Reading Where is Britain Going? Most timely reading for British socialists, this book places the development of British politics in correct ] historic perspective. Here Trotsky, writing on the eve : of the General Strike of 1926, employs his great revolutionary experience to analyse and explain the ideological and moral concepts of the ruling classes and ere their servants in the Labour bureaucracy. Crectuan! ity rita rai 136 pages, 7/6 The Draft Programme of the Communist International by Leon Trotsky This is part of the author’s criticism of the draft programme submitted by the Executive Committee of the Third (Communist) International to the 6th Congress of the Comintern which was held in July 1928. The manuscript of that criticism was written by Trotsky during his exile in Alma-Ata (Central Asia). It was sent to the Congress in Moscow together with an appeal for reinstatement into the party from which he had been expelled a few months before by the Stalinist faction in 1927. Stalin and his supporters had invented the theory of ‘Socialism in one country’, which was made party policy in 1925 and converted into an article of faith to be defended by the world institutions of Stalinism. It is this theory which Trotsky criticises in these pages. 64 pages, 1/- The New Course By Leon Trotsky A collection of articles written in 1923 during the lull before the great storm of persecution which was later to overwhelm Russian Bolshevism. Here Trotsky analyses the incipient stages of the degeneration of the Communist Party, uncovers its causes and proposes measures for combating its further decline. He here analyses the party in a historical, that is dialectical way, the relationships between generations, social strata, groups, factional forma- tions, tradition and the multitude of factors that go to make a revolutionary This document is a landmark in the developnient of 20th _ century Marxism. It sums up the experience of an entire period of struggle against the Soviet bureaucracy. This Platform also represents the highest point in the fortunes of ; [he § the Joint Opposition (Trotskyist-Zinovievite) to Stalin. It is 7) if the programme of the last of the Bolshevik-Leninists who aiorm insisted that they remained communists despite all the per- secution, jailings, violence and slander inflicted on them. But this document also represents a watershed—the end of the - 5g * 9, one phase and the beginning of another—in the evolution of left Opposition is) Trotskyist politics. 112 pages, 5/- Printed by Plough Press (TU) (8.69) r-o 180 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4

[p061] Subscribe to Fourth International FOURTH INTERNATIONAL is the theoretical journal of the International Committee of the Fourth Inter- national. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL continues the work of Lasour REvIEW which concluded its 12th year of publication with its issue of Summer 1963, the fifth number of volume 7. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL continues the work and traditions of Revolutionary Communism since the death of Lenin. == © - ; FOURTH INTERNATIONAL represents the unbroken chain of theoretical journals in the Bolshevik tradition, whose continuators were the Left Opposition led and inspired by Leon Trotsky. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL follows in the traditions of that Opposition and in the traditions of the Fourth International of Leon Trotsky. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL is the product of decades of continuous struggle of Marxists in the Inter- national Labour movement against Stalinism, Reformism and Revisionism. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL represents the successful fusion of Marxist trends in this International Labour movement, from Trotskyist to Com- munist, Social-Democratic and Trade Union movements. FourTH INTERNATIONAL, with its first issue, com- menced a new period of activity in the Inter- National. Labour movement and continues to prepare and equip the Marxist movement for its future intervention in the battles of the working class which promise to eclipse and transcend all previous struggles both in their depth and scope. To: New Park Publications Ltd., 186a Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4 I enclose cheque/postal order/money order/draft for £ “Ss. d. to pay for issues of FourTH INTERNATIONAL. Volume.... No..... Price 4/- (postage 6d. per issue) vwoecwereereeneee eee eer eeeneeeeeeeeoeeeneeoeane oe eens esreaesn eee eeae eases eseseneenseeeraeeens Some writings by Leon Trotsky The First Five Years of the Communist International Vol. 2 (soft cover) 12s. 64. (hard cover) 18s. Od. The New Course 3s. Gd. The Permanent Revolution (soft cover) 15s. Od. (hard cover) 25s. Gd. Draft Programme of the Communist International A Criticism of Fundamentals, 1928 Is. Qd. Where is Britain Going? * Ts. 6d. Whither France? 5s. Od. Stalinism and Trotskyism in the USA Is. 6d. Stalinism and Bolshevism éd. Radio, Science, Technique and Society Is. Od. I Stake My Life! (Dewey report of the Moscow Trials) 6a. The Russian Revolution (The Copenhagen Speech) 4d. Culture and Socialism and Art and Revolution 2s. 6d. Death Agony of Capitalism (Transitional Programme) 1/- The Intelligentsia and Socialism Is. Od. In Defence of Marxism (soft cover) 10s. 6d. (hard cover) 21s. Od. Platform of the Left Opposition 5s. Od. Through What Stage Are We Passing? 2s. Od. Young People Study Politics Is. 9d. The Struggle for State Power (1917) 2s. Od. To: New Park Publications Ltd., 186A Clapham High St., London, S.W.4. I enclose cheque/postal order/money order/ draft for £ s. d. to pay for COCR SHES HOSOHEESSESHEESOSSE SHEESH TOHESEH ROHS TOE ES POSe SORE eE SHORE HEHE DAS EHO SSE HEE HEH SD ESESES HED IFE SD

[p062] Subscribe to Fourth International FourTH INTERNATIONAL is the theoretical journal of the International Committee of the Fourth Inter- national. FouRTH INTERNATIONAL continues the work of Lasour REvIEW which concluded its 12th year of publication with its issue of Summer 1963, the fifth number of volume 7. FourTH INTERNATIONAL continues the work and traditions of Revolutionary Communism since the death of Lenin. FourRTH INTERNATIONAL represents the unbroken chain of theoretical journals in the Bolshevik tradition, whose continuators were the Left Opposition led and inspired by Leon Trotsky. FourTH INTERNATIONAL follows in the traditions of that Opposition and in the traditions of the Fourth International of Leon Trotsky. FourTH INTERNATIONAL is the product of decades of continuous struggle of Marxists in the Inter- national Labour movement against Stalinism, Reformism and Revisionism. FourRTH INTERNATIONAL represents the successful fusion of Marxist trends in this International Labour movement, from Trotskyist to Com- munist, Social-Democratic and Trade Union movements. FourTH INTERNATIONAL, With its first issue, com- menced a new period of activity in the Inter- National Labour movement and continues to prepare and equip the Marxist movement for its future intervention in the battles of the working class which promise to eclipse and transcend all previous struggles both in their depth and scope. To: New Park Publications Ltd., 1864 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4 I enclose cheque/postal order/money order/draft for £ Ss. d. to pay for issues of FourtTH INTERNATIONAL. Volume.... No..... Price 4/- (postage 6d. per issue) Teer eee eee eee eee ee ee ee Some writings by Leon Trotsky The First Five Years of the Communist International Vol. 2 (soft cover) 12s. 64. (hard cover) 18s. Od. The New Course 3s. Gd. The Permanent Revolution (soft cover) 15s. Od. (hard cover) 25s. Od. Draft Programme of the Communist International A Criticism of Fundamentals, 1928 Is. Qd. Where is Britain Going? 7s. 6d. Whither France? 5s. Od. Stalinism and Trotskyism in the USA Is. 6d. Stalinism and Bolshevism éd. Radio, Science, Technique and Society Is. Od. I Stake My Life! (Dewey report of the Moscow Trials) 6a. The Russian Revolution (The Copenhagen Speech) 4d. Culture and Socialism and Art and Revolution 2s. 6d. Death Agony of Capitalism (Transitional Programme) 1/- The Intelligentsia and Socialism Is. Od. In Defence of Marxism (soft cover) 10s. 6d. (hard cover) 21s. Od. Platform of the Left Opposition 5s. Od. Through What Stage Are We Passing? 2s. Od. Young People Study Politics Is. 9d. The Struggle for State Power (1917) 2s. Od. To: New Park Publications Ltd., 186A Clapham High St., London, 8.W.4. I enclose cheque/postal order/money order/ draft for £ s. d. to pay for