what's the deal with karl radek?

[9]

So I always hear and read contradictory things about this guy.

Originally, I'd been under the impression that he was a left communist.
Then sometime last year, I was talking with a Trotskyist contact of mine, who informed me that Radek was a Trotskyist and had been part of the Left Opposition.
And then a few weeks ago, a former anarchyist who I have political discussions with began insisting - when I mentioned that Radek had been a Trotskyist - that he had actually been a Stalinist, but I think he must have been confusing him with someone else.
And then the day before yesterday, I read a post by someone on here (Zanthorous iirc) that said he was a left communist who had been one of the first to put forward a theory of state capitalism (which is similar to what my original understanding of him had been).

I just checked the wikipedia entry on him, which is totally unhelpful. Anybody know a bit more about him, care to fill me in?
Its a matter of great importance, as he was clearly the most hilarious-looking of all the Bolsheviks.

[Kléber]

Radek was a Bolshevik organizer of the 1917 revolution and a leading Left Oppositionist from that faction's 1923 foundation until it was banned in 1927. In 1930 he publicly renounced Trotskyism to get out of a hard labor sentence. In return for capitulating to Stalin he was given a job writing anti-Trotskyist propaganda and other bureaucratic hack work such as the 1936 Constitution. He may have snitched on and caused the death of Yakov Blumkin, who sent by Trotsky on a secret mission to win him back to the Opposition. Finally Radek was purged in 1937 and murdered by the NKVD in 1939 while in prison, probably for knowing too much. I'd never heard that he was a left-communist, but he seemed to be on the left of the party in 1919 - Trotsky brought him along to Brest-Litovsk to troll the Germans with his radical antics during peace negotiations.

[Paulappaul]

A trotskyist and old bolshevik. He wasn't a Left Communist, If I recall correctly he was in the KPD against the KAPD (a council communist organization).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"But Trotsky’s organizing genius, and his boldness of thought are even more clearly expressed in his courageous determination to utilize the war specialists for creating the army. Every good Marxist is fully aware that in building up a good economic apparatus we still require the aid of the old capitalist organization. Lenin defended this proposition with the utmost decision in his April speech on the tasks of the Soviet power, In the mature circles of the party the idea is not contested. But the idea that we could create an instrument for the defense of the republic, an army, with the aid of the Czarist officers – encountered obstinate resistance. Who could think of re-arming the White officers who had just been disarmed? Thus many comrades questioned. I remember a discussion on this question among the editors of the Communist, the organ of the so-called left communists, in which the question of the employment of staff officers nearly led to a split. And the editors of this paper were among the best schooled theoreticians and practicians of the party. It suffices to mention the names of Bukharin, Ossonski, Lomov, W. Yakovlev. There was even greater distrust among the broad circles of our military comrades, recruited for our military organizations during the war. The mistrust of our military functionaries could only be allayed, their agreement to the utilization of the knowledge possessed by the old officers could only be won, by the burning faith of Trotsky in our social force, the belief that we could obtain from the war experts the benefit of their science, without permitting them to force their politics upon us; the belief that the revolutionary watchfulness of the progressive workers would enable them to overcome any counter-revolutionary attempts made by the staff officers." - Karl Radek. Leon Trotsky, Organizer of Victory

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's also rumored that he created a lot of the anti-government / Stalin jokes that were floating around the USSR at the time of his death.

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/EB125C93-B2B2-40DB-AEDE-463F9E6A315A/U221542ACME.jpg

[ComradeOm]

Radek is an exceptionally interesting character. I wouldn't classify him as a Trotskyist, if only because it would be deeply anachronistic to apply such labels before the mid-1920s. By this stage Radek had already carved out plenty of space in the history books for his roles in both Germany and Russia. The former is more important but I can't recall much about this much-criticised role as informal ambassador to the KPD. If you need details I can look them up

He was definitely part of the Left Communists in Russia during early 1918 and the opposition to Brest-Litovsk. When their position fell apart during the summer of that year he quickly re-aligned himself with Lenin and the party centre

[Devrim]

Originally, I'd been under the impression that he was a left communist.


He wasn't a Left Communist, If I recall correctly he was in the KPD against the KAPD (a council communist organization).


Thus many comrades questioned. I remember a discussion on this question among the editors of the Communist, the organ of the so-called left communists, in which the question of the employment of staff officers nearly led to a split. And the editors of this paper were among the best schooled theoreticians and practicians of the party. It suffices to mention the names of Bukharin, Ossonski, Lomov, W. Yakovlev.

Radek was a left communist in the early days after the revolution. The reason he remembers the discussion is that he too was one of the editors. It is well documented, but it is here in Brinton:


April 20 [1918]

The issue of workers' control was now being widely discussed within the Party. Leningrad District Committee publishes first issue of Kommunist (a 'left' communist theoretical journal edited by Bukharin, Radek and Osinsky, later to be joined by Smirnov). This issue contained the editors' "Theses on the Present Situation".

The paper denounced "a labour policy designed to implant discipline among the workers under the flag of 'self - discipline', the introduction of labour service for workers, piece rates, and the lengthening of the working day". It proclaimed that "the introduction of labour discipline in connection with the restoration of capitalist management of industry cannot really increase the productivity of labour". It would "diminish the class initiative, activity and organisation of the proletariat. It threatens to enslave the working class. It will arouse discontent among the backward elements as well as among the vanguard of the proletariat. In order to introduce this system in the face of the hatred prevailing at present among the proletariat against the 'capitalist saboteurs' the Communist Party would have to rely on the petty - bourgeoisie, as against the workers". It would "ruin itself as the party of the proletariat".

The first issue of the new paper also contained a serious warning by Radek: "If the Russian Revolution were overthrown by violence on the part of the bourgeois counter - revolution it would rise again like a phoenix; if however it lost its socialist character and thereby disappointed the working masses, the blow would have ten times more terrible consequences for the future of the Russian and the international revolution". (44)

After the left was defeated over Brest-Litovsk, Radek moved away from it, and during his work in Germany he was with the KPD leadership against the majority that later became the KAPD, a left communist party, not a 'council communist organisation.


Then sometime last year, I was talking with a Trotskyist contact of mine, who informed me that Radek was a Trotskyist and had been part of the Left Opposition.


Radek is an exceptionally interesting character. I wouldn't classify him as a Trotskyist, if only because it would be deeply anachronistic to apply such labels before the mid-1920s.

I think that ComradeOm is essentially right. The Left opposition in the twenties is not 'Trotskyist' in the sense that we understand it today, and contained various other currents from earlier, more radical oppositions.

Devrim

[Ismail]

It's worth noting that Trotsky sent letters to Radek in the early 1930's as part of oppositionist activity. The source for this isn't the Moscow Trials (though there Radek claimed to receive said letters—the content of them is what's in dispute) but is instead in Trotsky's own archive at Harvard.

See: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1521611&postcount=7

At the time of the Moscow show trials, Trotsky denied that he had any communications with the defendants since his exile in 1929. Yet it is now clear that in 1932 he sent secret personal letters to former leading oppositionists Karl Radek, G. Sokol'nikov, E. Preobrazhensky, and others. While the contents of these letters are unknown, it seems reasonable to believe that they involved an attempt to persuade the addressees to return to opposition.

[....]

18 Trotsky Papers, 15821. Unlike virtually all Trotsky's other letters (including even the most sensitive) no copies of these remain the Trotsky Papers. It seems likely that they have been removed from the Papers at some time. Only the certified mail receipts remain. At his 1937 trial, Karl Radek testified that he had received a letter from Trotsky containing 'terrorist instructions', but we do not know whether this was the letter in question.Jerome Davis, in his book Beyond Soviet Power in 1946, stated on p. 29 that:

I had interviewed him in his apartment in Moscow in 1935, knowing that he was in the opposition group. In the course of the conversation Radek remarked that he considered Foreign Affairs the best periodical in America. This seemed a strange comment for a man of his views, until I learned that Trotsky had just published an article there. From further conversation I received the distinct impression, which he possibly wished to convey, that Radek was in closest contact with Trotsky in exile.So if he wasn't a Trotskyist it seems probable that he was still quite close with Trotsky.

[Kléber]

So if he wasn't a Trotskyist, it seems probable he was still quite close with Trotsky.
There is no evidence he replied to the 1932 letter. The Bulletin of the Opposition publicly denounced Radek from 1929.

For his part, Radek was paid to write Stalinist pamphlets, his most disgraceful piece being The Fascist Band, Trotskyist-Zinovievist, and its Hetman Trotsky.


In the summer of 1929, Blumkin visited me in Constantinople. Here is what I find stated in the Bulletin on the basis of letters received from Moscow. The date is December 25, 1929. And the quotation: 'Radek’s nervous babbling is well known. Now he is absolutely demoralized, like the majority of the capitulators ... Having lost the last remnants of moral equilibrium, Radek stops before no abjection.' The correspondence relates how 'Blumkin was betrayed after his meeting with Radek.' From that time on he became the most odious figure of the Left Opposition, because he was not only a capitulator, but a traitor."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/dewey/session03.htm

[Kiev Communard]

Radek was an epitome of political opportunism, changing his viewpoints and leaping from one political group to another. His help may have been valuable in the course of 1917 revolution itself, but after that he strikes as rather ignoble figure, quite similar to Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieyes) during the French Revolution.

[Ismail]

The Bulletin of the Opposition publicly denounced Radek from 1929.From Trotskyism or Leninism? pp. 320-321:

As regards to the tactical side of it, a sudden moratorium of all criticism of the accused by Trotsky would have made the Soviet authorities suspicious; it was therefore necessary for Trotsky to continue with his public criticism of the accused while in practice cooperating with them...

Trotsky was notorious for forming blocs with all kinds of people whom he had often denounced in the periods immediately preceding the formation of such blocs... giving an estimation of Radek in 1918, he told the Dewey Commission:

He [Radek] was active for a certain time [I]in the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs, but the diplomats claimed it was impossible to say anything in his presence, because tomorrow it as known by all the city. We removed him immediately ...This is what Trotsky thought of Radek in 1918. Yet this estimation of Radek did not prevent Trotsky from working in close cooperation with Radek from 1925 to 1928.It was normal for those who later winded up in the Moscow Trials to denounce Trotsky. Bukharin used that as part of his defense during Central Committee meetings preceding his arrest. Obviously if Radek said something to the extent of "I will not attack Trotsky" then he wouldn't be in good graces for long.

Besides, it's been established that he sent at least one letter to Radek. Evidently he didn't consider him to be much of a turncoat, otherwise why risk sending a letter to him?

[Kléber]

That's all speculation. Trotsky was organizing a united opposition to restore Soviet democracy, not a Nazi-controlled terror network to destroy socialism.

I wonder if Hoxha had actually put together an anti-revisionist opposition movement in the USSR, you think the Soviet government would have said "They're just honest Marxist-Leninists who oppose our corruption, no CIA influence whatsoever, let them spread their documents and have their Stalin jubilee!"

[Ismail]

That's all speculation. Trotsky was organizing a united opposition to restore Soviet democracy, not a Nazi-controlled terror network to destroy socialism.A letter was sent from Trotsky to Radek. That isn't speculation. Trotsky's son Sedov wrote (as noted in Getty article) of a bloc including "Zinovievists" (Trotsky, of course, wasn't fond of Zinoviev in public either) and of attempts to win over the "rights." That isn't speculation. As Getty pointed out in a footnote, "Included in file 13095 is a 1937 note from Trotsky's secretary van Heijenoort which shows that Trotsky and Sedov were reminded of the bloc at the time of the 1937 Dewey Commission but withheld the matter from the inquiry."

Trotsky wanted his "left" elements to lead the planned bloc and distrusted the right-wingers within it, but still sought to unite them with the "lefts."

This isn't speculation. You've given no proof of your position except from Trotsky's public utterances, which cannot be reconciled with his private activities.

So either Trotsky shot off letters to people he knew to be turncoats and irreconcilable opportunists for the hell of it (coupled with the obvious risks involved), or his public posturing on Radek and Co. wasn't too genuine.

[Lyev]

A letter was sent from Trotsky to Radek. That isn't speculation. Trotsky's son Sedov wrote (as noted in Getty article) of a bloc including "Zinovievists" (Trotsky, of course, wasn't fond of Zinoviev in public either) and of attempts to win over the "rights." That isn't speculation. As Getty pointed out in a footnote, "Included in file 13095 is a 1937 note from Trotsky's secretary van Heijenoort which shows that Trotsky and Sedov were reminded of the bloc at the time of the 1937 Dewey Commission but withheld the matter from the inquiry."

Trotsky wanted his "left" elements to lead the planned bloc and distrusted the right-wingers within it, but still sought to unite them with the "lefts."

This isn't speculation. You've given no proof of your position except from Trotsky's public utterances, which cannot be reconciled with his private activities.

So either Trotsky shot off letters to people he knew to be turncoats and irreconcilable opportunists for the hell of it (coupled with the obvious risks involved), or his public posturing on Radek and Co. wasn't too genuine.I may be missing something here, but why is Trotsky sending a letter to Radek of any importance or historical interest? Is this to back up the claim that he was an opportunist - i.e., had a tendency to change political groupings when it suited him - or something along those lines? edit: ah ok, just read the thread properly. But sending a letter or two to someone does not make them "quite close", necessarily. Marx sent letters back and forth to Lassalle but they disagreed on a whole host of issues.

[Ismail]

I may be missing something here, but why is Trotsky sending a letter to Radek of any importance or historical interest? Is this to back up the claim that he was an opportunist - i.e., had a tendency to change political groupings when it suited him - or something along those lines?Let us quote The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia (http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/) by A.E. Kahn, which is mostly just a summary of the Moscow Trials and was written all the way back in 1946 (whereas Getty's article was written in 1986 with access to Trotsky's archives at Harvard University):

Throughout 1932, Russia's future Fifth Column began to take concrete shape in the underworld of the Opposition. At small secret meetings and furtive conferences, the members of the conspiracy were made aware of the new line and instructed in their new tasks. A network of terrorist cells, sabotage cells and courier systems was developed in Soviet Russia...

Trotsky's emphatic demand for the preparation of acts of terror at first alarmed some of the older Trotskyite intellectuals. The journalist Karl Radek showed signs of panic when Pyatakov acquainted him with the new line. In February 1932, Radek received a personal letter from Trotsky conveyed, as were all Trotskyite communications of a confidential character, by secret courier.

"You must bear in mind," Trotsky wrote his wavering follower, Radek, "the experience of the preceding period and realize that for you there can be no returning to the past, that the struggle has entered a new phase and that the new feature in this phase is that either we shall be destroyed together with the Soviet Union, or we must raise the question of removing the leadership." Trotsky's letter, together with Pyatakov's insistence, finally convinced Radek.I now repeat Getty's quote:

At the time of the Moscow show trials, Trotsky denied that he had any communications with the defendants since his exile in 1929. Yet it is now clear that in 1932 he sent secret personal letters to former leading oppositionists Karl Radek, G. Sokol'nikov, E. Preobrazhensky, and others. While the contents of these letters are unknown, it seems reasonable to believe that they involved an attempt to persuade the addressees to return to opposition.

[....]

18 Trotsky Papers, 15821. Unlike virtually all Trotsky's other letters (including even the most sensitive) no copies of these remain the Trotsky Papers. It seems likely that they have been removed from the Papers at some time. Only the certified mail receipts remain. At his 1937 trial, Karl Radek testified that he had received a letter from Trotsky containing 'terrorist instructions', but we do not know whether this was the letter in question.

[black magick hustla]

Radek was an epitome of political opportunism, changing his viewpoints and leaping from one political group to another. His help may have been valuable in the course of 1917 revolution itself, but after that he strikes as rather ignoble figure, quite similar to Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieyes) during the French Revolution.

i dont think he was an opportunist as much as he didnt want to have a bullet lodged in his head/rot in prison which at the end of the day he was probably murdered by the nvkd imo

opportunism is more akin to jump on the coat ttails of a tendency to gain power or priviliege not so much to survive

[Kléber]

A letter was sent from Trotsky to Radek. That isn't speculation.
That much isn't, but insinuations about the nature and contents of this letter do amount to nothing more than speculation.


Trotsky's son Sedov wrote (as noted in Getty article) of a bloc including "Zinovievists" (Trotsky, of course, wasn't fond of Zinoviev in public either) and of attempts to win over the "rights." That isn't speculation. It isn't news either. Of course there was mass opposition to Stalin's clique across the Bolshevik and Soviet political spectrum, why else would sweeping repressions of the party and citizenry be necessary for the rulers to hold on to power?

Unless of course, you subscribe to some kind of bourgeois idealist theory that the Bolsheviks destroyed themselves Jim Jones style because of their own inherent communist madness and paranoia.


As Getty pointed out in a footnote, "Included in file 13095 is a 1937 note from Trotsky's secretary van Heijenoort which shows that Trotsky and Sedov were reminded of the bloc at the time of the 1937 Dewey Commission but withheld the matter from the inquiry."Point in fact: it was 1937, people remotely connected with the Opposition was being taken out and murdered, sometimes along with their family. Damn right Trotsky and Sedov withheld sensitive information where necessary to protect the lives and honor of their comrades, hunted by the Stalinites in one of the most brutal persecutions in the history of the workers' movement!


Trotsky wanted his "left" elements to lead the planned bloc and distrusted the right-wingers within it, but still sought to unite them with the "lefts."

This isn't speculation. You've given no proof of your position except from Trotsky's public utterances, which cannot be reconciled with his private activities.
As Rogovin said, 10% of the purge trial accusations were true - there was a bloc of communists who thought Stalin was unfit for leadership, and Trotsky was in contact with them. Of course it's not speculation, it's something to be proud of: we almost got rid of the bastard. No amount of speculation about Trotsky's private activities can denigrate the determined, historic stand of the Bolshevik Leninists and all communist oppositionists against Stalinite bureaucratist revisionism.

But, 90% of the trials were based on slander and lies. The opposition did not conduct sabotage, assassinations; it was not in contact with or in the service of German, British, Japanese, or any other imperialisms. Neither Ryutin nor any other oppositionist called for the blood of Stalin, but this spurious claim is, in a way, a tacit admission by Stalin's own propaganda apparatus of the seething hatred held by the masses and the communists for their "leader."


So either Trotsky shot off letters to people he knew to be turncoats and irreconcilable opportunists for the hell of it (coupled with the obvious risks involved), or his public posturing on Radek and Co. wasn't too genuine.Here we have a blind apologist for the Molotov-Ribbentrop betrayal, a worshiper of the Stalin who had a Radek on his payroll for 8 years, up on his high horse scolding Trotsky for associating with this fellow. Only on Revleft.

Trotsky's letters to the capitulated oppositionists may have been reconsidered, discarded and never sent. The letters could have been misinformation to confuse censors and send the NKVD on a wild goose chase. I am just speculating here, but so are you when you suggest that the letter contained a diagram showing how to assassinate Stalin, and when you quote arch-hacks Sayers and Kahn. Even if Trotsky was trying to re-recruit capitulators, he may have just wanted to use them for information. Of course he knew Radek was a waverer, but Lenin said a scoundrel can be useful to us simply because he is a scoundrel.

So what if Trotsky tried to organize his comrades for a political struggle against the ruling faction? Did you forget your own tendency and its opportunist sectarian jihad against the USSR? Where was Hoxha's anti-revisionist Soviet workers, except on paper? Where did Trotskyists fight against the Soviet army and its proxies like Hoxhaists in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Ethiopia etc? Even in Vietnam, the Trotskyist guerrillas practically stood there and let the Stalinites murder them.

[Kléber]

i dont think he was an opportunist as much as he didnt want to have a bullet lodged in his head/rot in prison which at the end of the day he was probably murdered by the nvkd imo

opportunism is more akin to jump on the coat ttails of a tendency to gain power or priviliege not so much to survive
Uh, no. You can make that argument for Nazi collaborators. Snitches always have an "excuse." It doesn't matter if their family is held hostage. A snitch is a traitor and a disgrace, only good one is a dead one. Fuck Radek, that whore of the Kremlin. He betrayed his friends and worked as Stalin's hack, making up lies and insults against his old comrades.. until the pigs saw no more use for him. If that isn't opportunism I don't know what is.

[Kléber]

A joke about Radek:

During the purges, three prisoners in Siberia find themselves sharing a cell together. After long silence between them, one asks, "So, what are you in for?"

The second cellmate replies, "I'm innocent, of course - but they put me here for defending Karl Radek."

The first shouts back in astonishment, "What?! But I'm here for denouncing Karl Radek!"

Both prisoners pause awkwardly.. then their gaze turns to the third cellmate, sitting quietly in the dark corner. "Hey you," they ask, "what are you in for?"

The third cellmate says back, "I'm Karl Radek."

[DaringMehring]

Radek was a first-class wit, and a great organizer. He was a great Old Bolshevik.

His weakness was his lack of political tenacity --- which is really harsh to say, since he was tested in the most extreme circumstances, and passed many of those tests --- and eventually his immense talents and great spirit were subverted. But so what. All the Old Bolsheviks ended up with a Stalin bullet eventually. Some ended up broken by the end, others had more dignity. It's a postscript.

Karl Radek was a great guy.

[S.Artesian]

I now repeat Getty's quote:

It's one thing to quote Getty. It's another thing to omit the conclusion that Getty draws, which is that the contact between Trotsky and the remaining "old Bolsheviks" was not aimed at creating a "terrorist center" but rather at making efforts at a joint opposition to try and restore democratic procedures and debate to the party-- that kind of stuff.

As for Radek, so what if Trotsky thought one way of him in 1918 or 1925 but still maintained contact with him after his exile? Are revolutionists supposed to isolate themselves from, or better yet, expel all those with character flaws, big mouths, or who demonstrate childish behavior?

Geez... in that case nobody from Revleft stands a chance.

[S.Artesian]

Radek was a first-class wit, and a great organizer. He was a great Old Bolshevik.

His weakness was his lack of political tenacity --- which is really harsh to say, since he was tested in the most extreme circumstances, and passed many of those tests --- and eventually his immense talents and great spirit were subverted. But so what. All the Old Bolsheviks ended up with a Stalin bullet eventually. Some ended up broken by the end, others had more dignity. It's a postscript.

Karl Radek was a great guy.

Yeah, maybe, but his role in the 1923 crisis over the occupation of the Ruhr wasn't quite that great or Bolshevik as he seemed to endorse the nationalist opposition to the occupation and its cypto-national-bolshevist rhetoric-- if I recall correctly that is.

[Ismail]

I'm not going to debate the Moscow Trials or anything else not related to Karl Radek in this thread, I've already discussed the subject various times. You, Kléber, said that, "There is no evidence he replied to the 1932 letter. The Bulletin of the Opposition publicly denounced Radek from 1929." You were insinuating that because Trotsky criticized these people in public that it made little sense for them to work together in private. I pointed out that Trotsky clearly had an interest in working with Radek. You couldn't deny this, so you just went on about how Stalin was horrible and ignored the fact that your original argument is obviously wrong.

Trotsky criticized Radek while he was trying to establish contact with him. Trotsky covered up the fact that he was trying to contact him. As for the contents of the letter, according to Radek in the trials he received other letters Trotsky through Romm, a TASS correspondent in Berlin. Discussions on this will just degenerate into a big argument over the Moscow Trials and their legitimacy again.

Grover Furr, in his thing on the Moscow Trials and on Trotsky, noted that Trotsky had all the reason in the world to lie. It just meant we cannot take him at his word. You were taking him at his word, so I took the liberty of correcting you.

[Kléber]

We may never know what this letter contained, if it was even sent, but it was certainly not Nazi terrorist instructions. My point was that even if Trotsky did try to give Radek a second chance and win him back to the opposition, at least as an uninfluential informant, then that attempt seems to have been unsuccessful. I speculated on a few explanations for the mail receipt which make as much sense as your and Furr's speculation.

I don't really see what your point is. Trotsky lied to protect individual activists, so what? He wasn't the revisionist-in-chief who said proletarian internationalism was a tragi-comic misconception. As for talking about Radek absent from a discussion of Stalinism and the repressions, that's like lifting up a couch while an elephant sits on it.

[Ismail]

We may never know what this letter contained, if it was even sent, but it was certainly not Nazi terrorist instructions.Did Radek say that any letters he received contained "Nazi terrorist instructions"? Time to find out. We go to page 87 of the 1937 Report and read from Radek, "The word terrorism [in Trotsky's February 1932 letter] was not used, but when I read the words 'removing the leadership,' it became clear to me what Trotsky had in mind."

Good news is Radek also answered a question of yours, Kléber. He didn't reply to Trotsky's letter—assuming this was the one referenced in the Trotsky Archive, and there isn't a reason to think it isn't the same letter.

Actually it appears that this was the only letter Radek received (from my reading of the trial transcripts anyway) and he received it via Romm. Romm said that Radek told him the contents of the letter as follows (p. 139): "That it contained instructions about uniting with the Zinovievites, about adopting terrorist methods of struggle against the leaders of the C.P.S.U., in the first place against Stalin and Voroshilov." Evidently "terrorist methods of struggle" meant assassination.

Trotsky spoke in public of overthrowing Stalin, so the content of such a letter (which was quoted by Radek at the trials, and which was previously noted in the Sayers & Kahn quote I provided) isn't strange.


My point was that if Trotsky did try to win Radek back to the opposition, then that attempt appeared to be a failure. I don't really see what your point is. Trotsky lied to protect comrades, so?So Radek was an opportunist and Trotsky failed to "win Radek back to the opposition" yet Radek winded up in the Moscow Trials as a Trotskyist and Trotsky had sent him a letter most certainly concerning oppositionist activity hoping that he would keep quiet about it (either that or he had a knack for sending letters to people he knew weren't already supportive of him to some extent.)

Keep in mind in the trials Radek noted that he didn't just suddenly receive a letter and go, "My God! I'm going to go join this bloc!" He already had ties with others who supported Trotsky whilst publicly condemning him in the 1930-31 period, as noted in the trials by himself.

[Kléber]

Talk about a mess. Trotsky wrote just one letter so it had to be the one Radek mentioned, but actually Trotsky was so wicked he wrote many letters? Trotsky was so crafty he didn't use the word terrorism, but he was an evil traitor who issued regular exhortations to terrorism?

Back on planet earth, Radek privately insisted on his own innocence, in letters to Stalin which described his own plight as a "terrible crime," and in his last words to his daughter: "Whatever you learn and whatever you hear about me, be assured that I am guilty of nothing." (Of course, poor Radek was guilty of some things: capitulating to Stalin, snitching on Blumkin, and betraying his comrades who stuck with the opposition to their deaths).

[9]

Originally Posted by Ismail
I'm not going to debate the Moscow Trials or anything else not related to Karl Radek in this thread
the trials
in the Moscow Trials
Keep in mind in the trials
as noted in the trialsOK, could you please take it somewhere else (http://www.nbp-info.ru/), or at least stop derailing my thread with it? Thanks.
Feel free to split it into a new thread if you two want to continue going at it, btw.

[Ismail]

Trotsky wrote just one letter so it had to be the one Radek mentioned, but actually Trotsky was so wicked he wrote many letters?It seems according to the Moscow Trials transcripts the letter we know existed in the Trotsky Archives was the only one sent to Radek.


Trotsky was so crafty he didn't use the word terrorism, but he was an evil traitor who issued regular exhortations to terrorism?Assassinations can be called terrorist acts, can they not?

"After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress... No normal 'constitutional' ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm

So I don't see what's wildly inconsistent here.


Back on planet earth, Radek privately insisted on his own innocence, in letters to Stalin which described his own plight as a "terrible crime," and in his last words to his daughter: "Whatever you learn and whatever you hear about me, be assured that I am guilty of nothing."The source is from Rogovin's book. Taking Rogovin's source (a popular magazine) as true for the sake of argument, it's worth noting though that Bukharin also said similar stuff, yet evidence tends to contract his claims of innocence in matters.

Not to mention it's strange to treat the words of a supposedly unprincipled opportunist as truth on these matters anyway.


OK, could you please take it somewhere else (http://www.nbp-info.ru/), or at least stop derailing my thread with it? Thanks.
Feel free to split it into a new thread if you two want to continue going at it, btw.Yeah well unfortunately the issue of a letter involves the trials, not an entire debate on the whole issue of the trials themselves. I wouldn't mind a thread-split, though at least I'm remaining on the topic of Radek whereas Kléber tried to talk about how I was an "apologist" for Molotov-Ribbentrop and snide comments about a lack of viable pro-Hoxha groups in the USSR or whatever.

Also har-de-har with the "National Bolshevism" link.

Edit: Apparently Radek did receive a second letter from Trotsky in November 1935 which discussed Japan and such, as noted by Furr who was talking about pretrial examinations, but I suppose it isn't all that relevant considering the whole argument started over "Trotsky did not deal with Radek because Trotsky was condemning Radek in public" and should probably just have ended there in its refutation.

[Rooster]

Assassinations can be called terrorist acts, can they not?

"After the experiences of the last few years, it would be childish to suppose that the Stalinist bureaucracy can be removed by means of a party or soviet congress... No normal 'constitutional' ways remain to remove the ruling clique. The bureaucracy can be compelled to yield power into the hands of the proletarian vanguard only by force." - http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm

So I don't see what's wildly inconsistent here.


That's fine and all but removing a leadership by force =/= terrorism. I think you're possibly joining your own dots up here.

[black magick hustla]

Uh, no. You can make that argument for Nazi collaborators. Snitches always have an "excuse." It doesn't matter if their family is held hostage. A snitch is a traitor and a disgrace, only good one is a dead one. Fuck Radek, that whore of the Kremlin. He betrayed his friends and worked as Stalin's hack, making up lies and insults against his old comrades.. until the pigs saw no more use for him. If that isn't opportunism I don't know what is.

:shrugs: was bukharin an opportunist?

as someone posted here, radek's treachery is more of a postscript and its his broken man era than anything else

[Kléber]

:shrugs: was bukharin an opportunist?

as someone posted here, radek's treachery is more of a postscript and its his broken man era than anything else
Bukharin was an opportunist. By helping Stalin repress the Left Opposition he removed a bulwark of Soviet democracy that could have protected the lives of himself and his comrades, while unknowingly setting the stage for the liquidation of his own political base.

Many others capitulated early like Radek, but he was one of the first to inform on his comrades, in 1929. That denunciation caused the death of Yakov Blumkin, one of the first martyrs of the Opposition. Few oppositionists cracked like that until the mass arrests of 1935-6 following the Kirov murder. It's said that Old Bolshevik prisoners in the camps wouldn't even say hello to Radek or give him the time of day.

[Ismail]

Many others capitulated early like Radek, but he was one of the first to inform on his comrades, in 1929... It's said that Old Bolshevik prisoners in the camps wouldn't even say hello to Radek or give him the time of day.Ironically, as Sayers & Kahn noted:

Radek also claimed that, before his arrest, and as soon as he received Trotsky's [second, 1935] letter outlining the deal with the Nazi and Japanese Governments, he had made up his mind to repudiate Trotsky and to expose the conspiracy. For weeks, he debated what to do.

VYSHINSKY: What did you decide?

RADEK: The first step to take would be to go to the Central Committee of the Party, to make a statement, to name all the persons. This I did not do. It was not I that went to the G.P.U., but the G.P.U. that came for me.

VYSHINSKY: An eloquent reply!

RADEK: A sad reply.

In his final plea, Radek presented himself as a man torn with doubts, perpetually vacillating between loyalty to the Soviet regime and to the Left Opposition, of which he had been a member since the earliest revolutionary days.Looks like even in the trials Radek was shown to do similar things.

[Kléber]

Radek may have been a snitch and a coward, but he was a hero compared to the despicable weasel Vyshinsky.

[9]

OK, one more (sort of obscure) question on Radek.

I was skimming over this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1912/sep/04.htm

...the translation/format is terrible, and I can't get a very clear sense of what Lenin is talking about (to be fair, I'm also trying to multitask atm, and it may be clearer to me when I'm able to take the time later to read it more carefully).

Anyway, do any of you know what were the circumstances of the trial against Radek within the SDKPiL in 1912 which apparently resulted in his expulsion (a reference in the above link cites that he was charged with "a number of unethical acts", but doesn't elaborate) and Luxemburg's role in it?

[PhoenixAsh]

OK, one more (sort of obscure) question on Radek.

I was skimming over this: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1912/sep/04.htm

...the translation/format is terrible, and I can't get a very clear sense of what Lenin is talking about (to be fair, I'm also trying to multitask atm, and it may be clearer to me when I'm able to take the time later to read it more carefully).

wow...you are right...what a terrible translation! :-S Thank you for posting it though...its interesting.

What I got from this...

Lenin states that Radek is in his opinion a Liquidationist...and opposes his ideas. But does not agree with the accusations made by Vorstand. Radek namely did expose Vorstand as being disruptive...in fact they have formed a splinter group away from the warschaw committe and function on their own outside of the Central committe. Vortand now defends itself and tries to hide this fact by denouncing Radek as being Liquidationalist. In fact trying to hide one truth by exploiting and overstating another truth...which was based on facts dating back over 6 years (1906). Or, in other words, their crime is greater because they try to hide it by focussing on the crimes of those that exposed it. He denounces these accusations as political revenge. Lenin defends radek as being for some time a very good Komrade who did extensive work within the party. He states that Radek may be a liquidationalist but that he finds this more excusable (because he is not a member of the OC and CC) than Rosa being the same...because she is.

He also attacks Rosa for vocalizing her believe that she helped defeat Liquidationalists with iron fist because she really hasn't while they remained inside the CC abroad when its CC clearlly was destroyed by Liquidationalists and till the time he wrote the document there was not a straight answer if they wanted peace with liquidationalists or not.


please corect me if I am wrong.



I cannot answer your other question. But I hope this helped a bit.

[Kléber]

Anyway, do any of you know what were the circumstances of the trial against Radek within the SDKPiL in 1912 which apparently resulted in his expulsion (a reference in the above link cites that he was charged with "a number of unethical acts", but doesn't elaborate) and Luxemburg's role in it?
He may have committed some minor unethical acts but the real reason for his trial appears to be that he attacked the right wing of the SPD.

From Broué, Pierre. The German Revolution, 1917-23:
The division of the Lefts: the Radek Affair

The division of the Lefts in Germany, which was linked with the divisions of the international social-democratic Left, are clearly illustrated by what has come to be called the "Radek Affair." Karl Radek, whose real name was Karl Sobelsohn and came to be called "Radek" from the time of the "affair," was born in Austrian Galicia. In the German Party, he was a freelance or, to put it better, an "outsider." Originally an activist in the Polish Socialist Party, he joined the SDKPiL in 1904. He took part in the 1905 Revolution in Warsaw, where he was in charge of the Party's newspaper, Czerwony Sztandar. Then, after being arrested and escaping, he took refuge in Germany, in Leipsig, where he worked on the Leipziger Volkszeitung from 1908, and then in Bremen in 1911, where he worked on the Bremer Bürgerzeitung, and attracted attention by the sharpness of his pen. He polemicised not only against the nationalist tendencies in Social Democracy, but against the pacifist illusions of the Centre. This young man was one of those who attacked Kautsky's analysis of imperialism in the columns of Die Neue Zeit itself in May 1912.

The "Radek Affair" broke out in 1912. Radek went to Göppingen at the invitation of Thalheimer, with whom he was friendly, to replace him temporarily in control of the local radical newspaper Freie Volkszeitung, which had long been in financial difficulty, mainly because of its hostility to the revisionist leaders in Württemberg. Radek raised a national scandal by accusing the executing of acting in concert with the revisionists in their attempt to strangle the newspaper. At the same time, he was excluded from the SDKPiL because of his support for the opposition on the Party committee in Warsaw. In 1912, he was expelled on the charge of having formerly stolen money, books and clothes from Party comrades. The German Party's Congress in 1912 had raised the question of Radek's membership, which was contested by the Executing, without settling it. The Congress in 1913 took note of the fact that he had been excluded from its fraternal Polish party. After deciding that in principle no one who had been excluded from one party could join another party of the International, the Congress decided to apply this rule retrospectively to Radek.

Luxemburg was the intermediary of the Polish Party in its dealings with the German Executive, and she assisted Radek's enemies, such was her hostility to him. Marchlewski supported her. But Pannekoek and his friends in Bremen unconditionally backed Radek, whilst Karl Liebknecht also supported him on principle, because he saw the executive "making an example of him" in the process of taking reprisals against those who criticised its opportunism. At the level of the International, Lenin and Trotsky for their part rallied to the defense of Radek, who appealed to the Congress. The War was to leave the affair unresolved, but it was not without later repercussions.

It is significant that the leaders of the German Left were so divided on the occasion of the first trial of strength inside the Party, over an attempt to discipline a left-wing opponent, and, moreover, that some on the Left had been willing to see a fellow left-winger disciplined. The solidarity amongst members of a tendency against the bureaucratic apparatus did not exist here. Indeed, for the SPD's members, there was no sign of any coherent and enduring left-wing group.The ICC, which apparently supports the trial and expulsion of Radek, has this to say (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/1076 (http://en.internationalism.org/book/export/html/1076%29:)):

It was quite another situation concerning the Jury of Honour charged with treating the Radek affair. This jury did not have the mission of clearing a militant suspected of being a state agent, but of penalising the political behaviour of Radek within the Party. In December 1911, the SDKPiL nominated a commission responsible for examining the case of Radek, who was accused of several thefts: of the clothes of a comrade, of books belonging to the Party library, and of money. This commission led to nothing (although Radek ended up admitting having stolen the books and clothes) and was dissolved July 30, 1912. In August 1912, a Revolutionary Tribunal of the Party was set up and expelled Radek not only because of the thefts he was accused of but above all because of his trouble-making, in particular exploiting on his own account the dissensions within Social Democracy.And a short-lived split from the ICC in 1981 defended Radek on principle, and considered themselves to suffer a persecution at the hands of the ICC "apparat" similar to Radek's 1912 trial. It is reproduced here, though not supportively, in the Annex of "Rackets!" by the mysterious F. Palinorc (http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/rackets.htm (http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/rackets.htm%29:)):

Lenin was also instrumental in the rift between the SDKPiL factions, as he consistently supported the dissidents against Berlin and defended Radek. He saw from early that they were potential allies against the Mensheviks in the RSDLP. Similarly, Pannekoek, Knief, Thalheimer, etc, defended Radek unconditionally against the 1911-12 charges. It’s so clear – as it was then – that only when Radek changed factions were the old charges revived and thrown at him.

Radek was accused of: stealing a coat (or ‘clothes’) in Krakow (in 1902?), books (how many?) from comrades or from a Party newspaper library (it’s not clear which, or both?), a watch, 300 rubles belonging to the Warsaw unions (in one source this becomes ‘several hundred’), failure to pay party dues and of diversion of party funds. According to Nettl, he admitted the theft of the books and the clothes (or was it ‘the coat’?). But Nettl offers no evidence for this (opus cited, p. 355).

...

Luxemburg-Jogiches couldn’t forgive Radek for having ‘betrayed’ them. Radek had been their protégé, but had the temerity of publicly criticising Marchlewski, one of the SDKPiL Egocrats. After this, the paranoiac and vindictive animosity shown to Radek by Luxemburg probably pushed Radek to break with the Berlin SDKPiL. Acting as ‘la grande dame’ of the left, she couldn’t sit in the same restaurant table with others if Radek was present, and called him a ‘political whore’ in a private letter to the Zetkins. In 1918 she had to be persuaded to shake Radek’s hand when he re-appeared in Germany as a Bolshevik envoy.