Stalin dissolved the Comintern 70 years ago

[fractal-vortex]

On May 15, 1943, Stalin dissolved Comintern. So, who will dare to speak about Stalin as a "revolutionary"? Only people who don't know the history.

Same applies to other Stalinist leaders, such as Mao, Tito, Enver, etc.

Death to Stalinism!

[Ismail]

Considering that the Trot narrative also includes the Comintern parties being "controlled by Moscow" by the time it was dissolved, and that Comintern policy led to the defeat of the Chinese and Spanish "revolutions" (and Hitler's rise to power), one would have thought giving these parties more leeway to act would have been a good thing. But nope, Stalin is evil no matter what he does.

"We now know that on 20 April 1941, at a closed dinner at the Bolshoi Theater, Stalin... [r]effering to the fact that the American Communists had disaffiliated from the Comintern in order to avoid prosecution under the Voorhis Act... declared,

'Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Com[munist] parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization.'

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)

[Per Levy]

well that was one of the more honest things the soviet bureaucrats did in their time. not to mention that the third international wasnt much of an international anymore at this point but a tool to rule the other pro-soviet communist partys and in the end the third international wasnt needed for that. it was also a nice gesture towards the other imperial states like the usa, great britain and so on.

[Ismail]

but a tool to rule the other pro-soviet communist partysThat was probably the best (and most important) thing about it. It ironed out social-democratic and nationalist holdovers, attacked the racism of the early CPUSA and SACP, etc.

I've never heard a reason why dissolving the Comintern was such a big deal. It's not like communist parties stopped meeting afterwards.


it was also a nice gesture towards the other imperial states like the usa, great britain and so on.This is a common claim, that the Soviets dissolved it to appease the Allies. And yet I've never seen evidence of this. Dimitrov's diary records him noting that Stalin and Molotov regarded the Comintern as an impediment; the Allies aren't mentioned.

[Per Levy]

It ironed out social-democratic and nationalist holdovers

especially when it forced said commie partys to join the social democrats in united fronts. that really ironed out social democratic holdovers.

[Ismail]

especially when it forced said commie partys to join the social democrats in united fronts. that really ironed out social democratic holdovers.Some of the most copious materials denouncing the PCE came from right-wing PSOE leaders who alleged that calls for unity between the two parties were an attempt by the former to completely dominate and "Bolshevize" the latter. Right-wing social-democrats in Eastern Europe wrote similar works. Certainly wasn't the Communists being subordinate to the social-democrats, at any rate.

This is also rather ironic coming from a Trot considering that Trotsky kept on denouncing the KPD for not achieving a "united front" with the SPD.

[Per Levy]

Some of the most copious materials denouncing the PCE came from right-wing PSOE leaders who alleged that calls for unity between the two parties were an attempt by the former to completely dominate and "Bolshevize" the latter. Right-wing social-democrats in Eastern Europe wrote similar works.

yes thats why they are the right wing, rightwing social dems of today see allready communism when more traditional social dems call for higer taxes and a better welfare state. that means nothing. what would matter though are the actual politics. did, as an example, the pce supressed strikes while in gouvernment, supported they reactionary politics to stay in gouvernment and so on and so forth.


Certainly wasn't the Communists being subordinate to the social-democrats, at any rate.

so when the pce was in a gouvernment with the psoe they wernt being subordinate? what amazing stuff did they do then in that gouvernment then?


This is also rather ironic coming from a Trot considering that Trotsky kept on denouncing the KPD for not achieving a "united front" with the SPD.

um, im not a trot, im more leaning towards left and council communism than anything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

United fronts are different than popular fronts, though. In united fronts, the revolutionary parties maintain their independence. I am not sure if a united front with the SPD would have solved anything in Germany, but the popular fronts, particularly in the postwar period, have a mixed record. They were moderately successful in those cases where the communist parties came to dominate the social-democratic elements (and then only due to the enormous pressure of the working masses). In countries like France, however, they served to bolster bourgeois government and probably contributed to the birth of eurocommunism.

[Per Levy]

oh my bad, i mixed united with popular fronts in one of my posts, all you mls and trots and your fronts.

[Old Bolshie]

Considering that the Trot narrative also includes the Comintern parties being "controlled by Moscow" by the time it was dissolved, and that Comintern policy led to the defeat of the Chinese and Spanish "revolutions" (and Hitler's rise to power), one would have thought giving these parties more leeway to act would have been a good thing. But nope, Stalin is evil no matter what he does.

The Comintern was already dead when the Spanish Revolution broke out and
Stalin didn't need the Comintern to control foreign communist parties as the Spanish Revolution proved it.

The Comintern should have been one of the most important organs of USSR as it was with Lenin and it was completely destroyed alongside with the Congress of the party by Stalin. Both were cornerstones of Lenin's rule.


On May 15, 1943, Stalin dissolved Comintern. So, who will dare to speak about Stalin as a "revolutionary"?

He was never a revolutionary but instead a statesman and a good one, one must agree.