what's the deal with karl radek?

[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 trials

OK, could you please take it somewhere else, 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/trot...0/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, 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/trot...0/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/leni...912/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/leni...912/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):

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):

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.