What was THE COMINTERN?

[mojo.rhythm]

Hi comrades,

How would you explain what THE COMINTERN was to a junior revolutionary?

Questions to consider:


Why didn't Lenin and Trotsky elect to stick with the Second International and try and "re-revolutionize" it?
What is the point of even having an International anyway?
Compare and contrast the Third and Second internationals
How many parties/movements that attended the First Period Congresses, in general, were actual revolutionaries—as opposed to reformist, centrist, social-chauvinist, etc.?
How prevalent was ultra-leftism in the First Period of the Comintern? What positive contributions to fighting the Stalinist degeneration during the Second Period did they make?
What were some of the challenges obstacles that Lenin and Trotsky had to overcome during their time in the Third International?
What, if any, are some genuine criticisms of the Third International, vis-à-vis its formal structures, democratic forms, etc.

Cheers :grin:

*Just to clarify, ultra-lefties have just as much desire to fuck up the bourgeoisie as do Leninists and Trotskyists. Their desire for revolution was true and real.

[Brutus]

How many parties/movements that attended the Third Internationals, in general, were actual revolutionaries (as opposed to reformist, centrist, ultra-left, social-chauvinist, etc.)?

Bit rushed now, so I'll just reply to this point. The "ultra-lefts" were the actual revolutionaries. As the Comintern became more and more of an arm of Soviet foreign policy, the left communists were the ones who put up resistance and fought for Bolshevism.

And centrism? It was the "ultra-lefts" who you denounce as "not actual revolutionaries" that fought against the united front policy that allied the communist parties with the social democrats and reformists, and advocated working in reactionary trade unions because that's where the workers were. The Comintern became centrist through the 'influence' of the RCP(B), and the left communists were an organic offshoot of the Bolshevik Party whilst it was degenerating- these groupings formed precisely because the Bolshevik party was proletarian.

However, with the death of the revolutionary wave, Russia was practically buggered. Some people blame Lenin and Trotsky- they did the best with what they had; some people blame Stalin, but he was just a figurehead of the (necessary) bureaucracy that arose during the civil war.

Read up on yr left comms, kid.

[mojo.rhythm]

Thanks for the reply Bordiga,

Just to clarify, I'm not accusing ultra-lefties of not having genuine desire for revolution—they wanna rip the heads off the bourgeoisie just as much as any Trotskyist. I don't have any particular ill-will towards ultra-leftism actually (I used to be an anarcho-syndicalist after all); I just don't think that ultra-leftist attitudes towards working parliament, trade union activism, etc. proved the best strategy in the circumstances that Lenin talked about. I pretty much agree with everything written in Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder in other words (minus the condescending labeling of them as "infantile", or their approach as a "disorder").

But yeah, I might have unintentionally used language that gave off a different vibe. My fault. Apologies.

[Geiseric]

Comintern was the international political organization responsible for funding and directing the world revolution. The 2nd international collapsed due to patriotic chauvanists who formed its main parties in europe. The 3rd international contained members from almost every major country and imperialist colony.

[Brutus]

Why didn't Lenin and Trotsky elect to stick with the Second International and try and "re-revolutionize" it?
Because it was rotten to the core. The member parties had supported their countries in putting worker against worker in the blood-soaked fields of Europe. Anyone who remained loyal to the proletariat had left or been kicked out.


What is the point of even having an International anyway?

Capitalism is worldwide, and so the "head and weapon" of the proletariat (to quote the KAPD on the party) must also be international. In fact, since capitalism has developed to such an extent that it now absolutely dominates every country, it is no longer enough to be international- we must be transnational if we wish to win.


Compare and contrast the Third and Second internationals

The second international was formed during a time of peaceful development and reforms. It's parties were mass labour parties that included reformist elements and those who flirted with reformism. The third international was formed during the epoch of imperialism and war, and saw that mass parties were no longer suitable for post-war capitalism. Hence the parties of the third international we're formed from a complete break with the old, social-democratic parties which contained reformist and centrist elements.


How prevalent was ultra-leftism in the First Period of the Comintern? What positive contributions to fighting the Stalinist degeneration during the Second Period did they make?

They criticised the united front policy, which told workers they should ally with the same social-democrats that they were told to shoot two years earlier. Bordiga, in 1926, proposed that the USSR be ruled by the international (the communist parties of the world) and called Stalin "the gravedigger of the revolution" to his face. The "ultra-left" had been opposing degeneration since 1918 though, with the Democratic Centralist group and whatnot. Gorter's open letter to Lenin also deals with "left wing communism: an infantile disorder". I'd give that a read if you want to see both sides of the argument, especially since Gorter was actually in the countries where Lenin was recommending these tactics.


What, if any, are some genuine criticisms of the Third International, vis-à-vis its formal structures, democratic forms, etc.

The Manifesto of the Workers' Group by Myasnikov deals with criticisms of policy. If I fetch the link, it'll probably wipe my post, so I'll trust your searching skills. The ICC published it on www.internationalism.org

[mojo.rhythm]

Thanks Brutus. I'm downloading Gorter's reply now and converting it into EPUB.

With regards to the ultra-lefts like Bordiga, etc., how would you respond to the contention that the rise of Hitler might have been stopped in its tracks if it weren't for the equating of social-democracy and fascism as essentially almost the same thing ("social fascism")? Wouldn't it have at least helped somewhat if the German revolutionaries formed a United Front with the social-democratic forces?

Cheers:),
Mojo

[Brutus]

Thanks Brutus. I'm downloading Gorter's reply now and converting it into EPUB.

With regards to the ultra-lefts like Bordiga, etc., how would you respond to the contention that the rise of Hitler might have been stopped in its tracks if it weren't for the equating of social-democracy and fascism as essentially almost the same thing ("social fascism")? Wouldn't it have at least helped somewhat if the German revolutionaries formed a United Front with the social-democratic forces?

Cheers:),
Mojo

Dauve wrote a good piece on fascism and anti-fascism. With regards to your question, the quote below covers it.

http://www.freecommunism.org/fascism-anti-fascism-gilles-dauve/


Dictatorship is not a weapon of Capital, but rather a tendency of Capital which materializes whenever necessary. To return to parliamentary democracy after a period of dictatorship, as in Germany after 1945, signifies only that dictatorship is useless (until the next time) for integrating the masses into the State. We are not denying that democracy assures a gentler exploitation than dictatorship: anyone would rather be exploited like a Swede than like a Brazilian. But do we have a CHOICE? Democracy will transform itself into dictatorship as soon as it is necessary. The State can have only one function which it can fulfil either democratically or dictatorially. One might prefer the first mode to the second, but one cannot bend the State to force it to remaindemocratic. The political forms which Capital gives itself do not depend on the action of the working class any more than they depend on the intentions of the bourgeoisie. The Weimar Republic capitulated before Hitler, in fact it welcomed him with open arms. And the Popular Front in France did not “prevent fascism” because France in 1936 did not need to unify its Capital or reduce its middle classes. Such transformations do not require any political choice on the part of the proletariat.

Hitler is disparaged for retaining from the Viennese social democracy of his youth only its methods of propaganda. So what? The “essence” of socialism was more to be found in these methods than In the distinguished writings of Austro-Marxism. The common problem of social democracy and Naziism was how to organise the masses and, if necessary, repress them. It was the socialists and not the Nazis who crushed the proletarian insurrections. (This does not inhibit the current SPD, in power again as in 1919, from publishing a postage stamp in honour of Rosa Luxemburg whom it had murdered in 1919.) The dictatorship always comes after the proletarians have been defeated by democracy with the help of the unions and the parties of the Left. On the other hand, both socialism and Nazism have contributed to an improvement (temporary) in the standard of living. Like the SPD, Hitler became the instrument of a social movement the content of which escaped him. Like the SPD, he fought for power, for the right to mediate between the workers and Capital. And both Hitler and the SPD became the tools of Capital and were discarded once their respective tasks had been accomplished.

[mojo.rhythm]

So the basic idea is that even if the United Front was formed, and the Communists and left-reformists had worked in concert to thwart Hitler's rise to power, fascism—or even full-blown Nazism—would have still come to power in Germany?

[Hatshepsut]

...Nazism—would have still come to power in Germany?

I'll hazard a guess that's probably so. Hitler doesn't seem to have depended on support from abroad in his rise to power, and conservatives in Germany always far outnumbered radicalized worker groups.

It leaves me to doubt how much the history of Communism from 100 years ago can still be relied on for wisdom. I admit not knowing a lot of things about that history. And because it's convoluted and difficult to understand, learning it in detail would take years of study - and probably for little return, because world politics no longer resembles the Europe of 100 years ago. There is still a latent class struggle, but it's changed in character, along lines the pioneers of Communism couldn't foresee.

As for question 2, which asks "Why have an International?" Easy. A global outreach of some sort is needed, whether in Lenin's day, or Trotsky's, or now. My guess is that Lenin determined in his mind to break with the international movements early, because they would never agree to a focus on Russia as venue. He seemed to already express that view in What Is to Be Done (1902), where he says "that therefore it is absolutely necessary to shift the centre of gravity somewhat to national work." Then, during the Comintern years, Russian revolutionaries may have been reluctant to brook ideological challenge in a center outside their borders, since that could affect their agenda at home. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :unsure:

[mojo.rhythm]

Hatchepsut,

I agree that the class struggle of the Comintern years was far from identical to the class struggle of today. Still, it's important to learn about how to negotiate strategy and win other radical left forces over to your side when global revolutionary situations do crop up. The Comintern years are the best guide we have at the moment. I sincerely hope that this changes though, as soon as possible.

[mojo.rhythm]

Again, just to re-emphasize the original premise of the thread, if any comrade viewing this thread wants to have a crack at the following questions, please by all means!


Why didn't Lenin and Trotsky elect to stick with the Second International and try and "re-revolutionize" it?
What is the point of even having an International anyway?
Compare and contrast the Third and Second internationals
How many parties/movements that attended the First Period Congresses, in general, were actual revolutionaries—as opposed to reformist, centrist, social-chauvinist, etc.?
How prevalent was ultra-leftism in the First Period of the Comintern? What positive contributions to fighting the Stalinist degeneration during the Second Period did they make?
What were some of the challenges obstacles that Lenin and Trotsky had to overcome during their time in the Third International?
What, if any, are some genuine criticisms of the Third International, vis-à-vis its formal structures, democratic forms, etc.

Cheers,
Mojo

[Geiseric]

Revolution is an international concept, necessitating an international to bring all of the communists through the world in contact with eachother. The 2nd international collapsed since its leading European members supported their countries in WW1.