Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:40:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu> Subject: M-G: Re: M-TH: Wall street pathognominics Bedggood: Why should Trotsky oppose "Bolshevisation" since that was what was necessary? The German revolution failed ultimately because of the lack of a Bolshevik party. But to merge the form and content of Bolshevisation in order to then say that Trotsky did not oppose the bureaucratisation of the Comintern under Zinoviev, Bukharin etc is bullshit. Louis P: Nobody opposes "Bolshevization" in the sense of needing a revolutionary party. Why are you evading the point I am making? The "Bolshevization" I am referring to is the organizational principles adopted at the 1924 World Congress of the Comintern. They codify the wretched practices that had become commonplace in the preceding 3 years in which the Russian Communists, especially Trotsky, thought that it was normal to dictate to other Communist Parties what should go on the front pages of their newspaper, etc. He also instructed the head of the German Communist Party what date that a bid for power should be launched. This is not the way to build Bolshevik Parties. It is the way to nip them in the bud. Trotsky's imperious attitudes and Zinoviev's organizational guidelines were adopted wholesale by the Fourth International. Healy's madness doesn't come from bad genes. It comes from the ordinary madness incubated in the Comintern well before Stalin's assumption of power. Bedggood: Relying upon "national" impressions and not the Comintern instructions led to a second abortive adventure in 1921. Then the failure of the leading figures of the Comintern[excluding Trotsky] to understand the potential for revolution in 1923 led to the final defeat of the German revolution. Louis P: What a pack of lies. The German party certainly DID RELY on Comintern instructions. Early in 1921, the German Communists received a surprise visit from a three emissaries from the Comintern, who were led by Bela Kun, who had led an unsuccessful revolt in Hungary 2 years earlier and was now on official duty in Germany to give the Communists there the benefit of his wisdom. The party, Kun advised, must take the offensive even it had to resort to provocative measures. Once the Communists launched an offensive, 2 to 3 million German workers were bound to follow their bold lead. When he revealed his ideas to veteran Communist Clara Zetkin, she was shocked. She went immediately to Paul Levi and stated that a witness must be present at all future conversations with Kun, who she regarded as an adventurer despite his Comintern credentials. The 1921 uprising was defeated. Then, the entire Comintern--NOT JUST TROTSKY--decided a year and a half later that Germany was ripe for revolution. The plan was submitted by Karl Radek and everybody but Stalin was enthusiastic. Zinoviev wrote in October 1923, "in the cities the workers are definitely numerically superior and" and "the forthcoming German revolution will be a proletarian class revolution. The 22 million German workers who make up its army represent the cornerstone of the international proletariat." The German revolution became the dominant theme of Russian politics from that moment on. Workers agreed to a wage freeze in order to help subsidize the German uprising. Women were asked at public meetings to donate their wedding rings and other valuables for the German cause. Revolutionary slogans were coined, like "German Steam Hammer and Soviet Bread will Conquer the World!" Everybody in Russia was sold on the plan. Unfortunately, the head of the German Communist Party, a mediocrity by the name of Brandler, was not. Trotsky talked him into the plan. Trotsky, you see, was a very powerful figure and Brandler was easily swayed. The problem, however, is that easily swayed people are not very good at leading the masses. As it turned out, the German masses in 1923 pretty much ignored the CP. You might ask yourself how the German Communists ended up with a mediocrity like Brandler running things. There had been much more talented people in the leadership before Brandler. But they got on the wrong side of the Comintern brass and lost their jobs. This is not the way to build revolutionary parties. It is the way to build sects. Every Fourth International has functioned in exactly the same top-down manner as the early Comintern. Healy ran his gang that way; so did Pablo. Bedggood would run the LCMRI in exactly the same way, but history has moved on. Instead of a new Fourth International arising out of the dozen or two people in Bedggood's gang, what you are much more likely to see is efforts to build revolutionary parties that are much more in harmony with the genuine Bolshevik party rather than the Zinovievist caricature Bedggood clutches to his bosom. --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005