Click on the headline to link to the Lenin Internet Archives.
Markin comment:
This article goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts.
*******
With this now-classic work, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions in 12 years—in a manner that European Communists could relate to, for it was to them he was speaking. He also further develops the theory of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means and stresses that the primary danger for the working-class movement in general is opportunism on the one hand, and anti-Marxist ultra-leftism on the other.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder was written in April, and the appendix was written on May 12, 1920. It came out on June 8-10 in Russian and in July was published in German, English and French. Lenin gave personal attention to the book’s type-setting and printing schedule so that it would be published before the opening of the Second Congress of the Communist International, each delegate receiving a copy. Between July and November 1920, the book was re-published in Leipzig, Paris and London, in the German, French and English languages respectively.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder is published according to the first edition print, the proofs of which were read by Lenin himself.
***********
Several Conclusions
The Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905 revealed a highly original turn in world history: in one of the most backward capitalist countries, the strike movement attained a scope and power unprecedented anywhere in the world. In the first month of 1905 alone, the number of strikers was ten times the annual average for the previous decade (1895-1904); from January to October 1905, strikes grew all the time and reached enormous proportions. Under the influence of a number of unique historical conditions, backward Russia was the first to show the world, not only the growth, by leaps and bounds, of the independent activity of the oppressed masses in time of revolution (this had occurred in all great revolutions), but also that the significance of the proletariat is infinitely greater than its proportion in the total population; it showed a combination of the economic strike and the political strike, with the latter developing into an armed uprising, and the birth of the Soviets, a new form of mass struggle and mass organisation of the classes oppressed by capitalism.
The revolutions of February and October 1917 led to the all-round development of the Soviets on a nation-wide scale and to their victory in the proletarian socialist revolution. In less than two years, the international character of the Soviets, the spread of this form of struggle and organisation to the world working-class movement and the historical mission of the Soviets as the grave-digger, heir and successor of bourgeois parliamentarianism and of bourgeois democracy in general, all became clear.
But that is not all. The history of the working-class movement now shows that, in all countries, it is about to go through (and is already going through) a struggle waged by communism — emergent, gaining strength and advancing towards victory — against, primarily, Menshevism, i.e., opportunism and social-chauvinism (the home brand in each particular country), and then as a complement, so to say, Left-wing communism. The former struggle has developed in all countries, apparently without any exception, as a duel between the Second International (already virtually dead) and the Third International The latter struggle is to be seen in Germany, Great Britain, Italy, America (at any rate, a certain section of the Industrial Workers of the World and of the anarcho-syndicalist trends uphold the errors of Left-wing communism alongside of an almost universal and almost unreserved acceptance of the Soviet system), and in France (the attitude of a section of the former syndicalists towards the political party and parliamentarianism, also alongside of the acceptance of the Soviet system); in other words, the struggle is undoubtedly being waged, not only on an international, but even on a worldwide scale.
But while the working-class movement is everywhere going through what is actually the same kind of preparatory school for victory over the bourgeoisie, it is achieving that development in its own way in each country. The big and advanced capitalist countries are travelling this road far more rapidly than did Bolshevism, to which history granted fifteen years to prepare itself for victory, as an organised political trend. In the brief space of a year, the Third International has already scored a decisive victory; it has defeated the yellow, social-chauvinist Second International, which only a few months ago was incomparably stronger than the Third International, seemed stable and powerful, and enjoyed every possible support—direct and indirect, material (Cabinet posts, passports, the press) and ideological — from the world bourgeoisie.
It is now essential that Communists of every country should quite consciously take into account both the fundamental objectives of the struggle against opportunism and "Left" doctrinairism, and the concrete features which this struggle assumes and must inevitably assume in each country, in conformity with the specific character of its economics, politics, culture, and national composition (Ireland, etc.), its colonies, religious divisions, and so on and so forth. Dissatisfaction with the Second International is felt everywhere and is spreading and growing, both because of its opportunism and because of its inability or incapacity to create a really centralised and really leading centre capable of directing the international tactics of the revolutionary proletariat in its struggle for a world Soviet republic. It should be clearly realised that such a leading centre can never be built up on stereotyped, mechanically equated, and identical tactical rules of struggle. As long as national and state distinctions exist among peoples and countries—and these will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world-wide scale—the unity of the international tactics of the communist working-class movement in all countries demands, not the elimination of variety of the suppression of national distinctions (which is a pipe dream at present), but an application of the fundamental principles of communism (Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat), which will correctly modify these principles in certain particulars, correctly adapt and apply them to national and national-state distinctions. To seek out, investigate, predict, and grasp that which is nationally specific and nationally distinctive, in the concrete manner in which each country should tackle a single international task: victory over opportunism and Left doctrinarism within the working-class movement; the overthrow of the bourgeoisie; the establishment of a Soviet republic and a proletarian dictatorship—such is the basic task in the historical period that all the advanced countries (and not they alone) are going through. The chief thing—though, of course, far from everything—the chief thing, has already been achieved: the vanguard of the working class has been won over, has ranged itself on the side of Soviet government and against parliamentarianism, on the side of the dictatorship of the proletariat and against bourgeois democracy. All efforts and all attention should now be concentrated on the next step, which may seem—and from a certain viewpoint actually is —less fundamental, but, on the other hand, is actually closer to a practical accomplishment of the task. That step is: the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution.
The proletarian vanguard has been won over ideologically. That is the main thing. Without this, not even the first step towards victory can be made. But that is still quite a long way from victory. Victory cannot be won with a vanguard alone. To throw only the vanguard into the decisive battle, before the entire class, the broad masses, have taken up a position either of direct support for the vanguard, or at least of sympathetic neutrality towards it and of precluded support for the enemy, would be, not merely foolish but criminal. Propaganda and agitation alone are not enough for an entire class, the broad masses of the working people, those oppressed by capital, to take up such a stand. For that, the masses must have their own political experience. Such is the fundamental law of all great revolutions, which has been confirmed with compelling force and vividness, not only in Russia but in Germany as well. To turn resolutely towards communism, it was necessary, not only for the ignorant and often illiterate masses of Russia, but also for the literate and well-educated masses of Germany, to realise from their own bitter experience the absolute impotence and spinelessness, the absolute helplessness and servility to the bourgeoisie, and the utter vileness of the government of the paladins of the Second International; they had to realise that a dictatorship of the extreme reactionaries (Kornilov [37] in Russia; Kapp [38] and Co. in Germany) is inevitably the only alternative to a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The immediate objective of the class-conscious vanguard of the international working-class movement, i.e., the Communist parties, groups and trends, is to be able to lead the broad masses (who are still, for the most part, apathetic, inert, dormant and convention-ridden) to their new position, or, rather, to be able to lead, not only their own party but also these masses in their advance and transition to the new position. While the first historical objective (that of winning over the class-conscious vanguard of the proletariat to the side of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the working class) could not have been reached without a complete ideological and political victory over opportunism and social-chauvinism, the second and immediate objective, which consists in being able to lead the masses to a new position ensuring the victory of the vanguard in the revolution, cannot be reached without the liquidation of Left doctrinairism, and without a full elimination of its errors.
As long as it was (and inasmuch as it still is) a question of winning the proletariat’s vanguard over to the side of communism, priority went and still goes to propaganda work; even propaganda circles, with all their parochial limitations, are useful under these conditions, and produce good results. But when it is a question of practical action by the masses, of the disposition, if one may so put it, of vast armies, of the alignment of all the class forces in a given society for the final and decisive battle, then propagandist methods alone, the mere repetition of the truths of "pure" communism, are of no avail. In these circumstances, one must not count in thousands, like the propagandist belonging to a small group that has not yet given leadership to the masses; in these circumstances one must count in millions and tens of millions. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves, not only whether we have convinced the vanguard of the revolutionary class, but also whether the historically effective forces of all classes—positively of all the classes in a given society, without exception—are arrayed in such a way that the decisive battle is at hand—in such a way that: (1) all the class forces hostile to us have become sufficiently entangled, are sufficiently at loggerheads with each other, have sufficiently weakened themselves in a struggle which is beyond their strength; (2) all the vacillating and unstable, intermediate elements—the petty bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeois democrats, as distinct from the bourgeoisie —have sufficiently exposed themselves in the eyes of the people, have sufficiently disgraced themselves through their practical bankruptcy, and (3) among the proletariat, a mass sentiment favouring the most determined, bold and dedicated revolutionary action against the bourgeoisie has emerged and begun to grow vigorously. Then revolution is indeed ripe; then, indeed, if we have correctly gauged all the conditions indicated and summarised above, and if we have chosen the right moment, our victory is assured.
The differences between the Churchills and the Lloyd Georges —with insignificant national distinctions, these political types exist in all countries—on the one hand, and between the Hendersons and the Lloyd Georges on the other, are quite minor and unimportant from the standpoint of pure (i.e., abstract) communism, i.e., communism that has not yet matured to the stage of practical political action by the masses. However, from the standpoint of this practical action by the masses, these differences are most important. To take due account of these differences, and to determine the moment when the inevitable conflicts between these "friends", which weaken and enfeeble all the "friends" taken together, will have come to a head—that is the concern, the task, of a Communist who wants to be, not merely a class-conscious and convinced propagandist of ideas, but a practical leader of the masses in the revolution. It is necessary to link the strictest devotion to the ideas of communism with the ability to effect all the necessary practical compromises, tacks, conciliatory manoeuvres, zigzags, retreats and so on, in order to speed up the achievement and then loss of political power by the Hendersons (the heroes of the Second International, if we are not to name individual representatives of petty-bourgeois democracy who call themselves socialists); to accelerate their inevitable bankruptcy in practice, which will enlighten the masses in the spirit of our ideas, in the direction of communism; to accelerate the inevitable friction, quarrels, conflicts and complete disintegration among the Hendersons, the Lloyd Georges and the Churchills (the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Constitutional-Democrats, the monarchists; the Scheidemanns, the bourgeoisie and the Kappists, etc.); to select the proper moment when the discord among these "pillars of sacrosanct private property" is at its height, so that, through a decisive offensive, the proletariat will defeat them all and capture political power.
History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most class-conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes. This can readily be understood, because even the finest of vanguards express the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of thousands, whereas at moments of great upsurge and the exertion of all human capacities, revolutions are made by the class-consciousness, will, passion and imagination of tens of millions, spurred on by a most acute struggle of classes. Two very important practical conclusions follow from this: first, that in order to accomplish its task the revolutionary class must be able to master all forms or aspects of social activity without exception (completing after the capture of political power — sometimes at great risk and with very great danger—what it did not complete before the capture of power); second, that the revolutionary class must be prepared for the most rapid and brusque replacement of one form by another.
One will readily agree that any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war. In politics it is even harder to know in advance which methods of struggle will be applicable and to our advantage in certain future conditions. Unless we learn to apply all the methods of struggle, we may suffer grave and sometimes even decisive defeat, if changes beyond our control in the position of the other classes bring to the forefront a form of activity in which we are especially weak. If, however, we learn to use all the methods of struggle, victory will be certain, because we represent the interests of the really foremost and really revolutionary class, even if circumstances do not permit us to make use of weapons that are most dangerous to the enemy, weapons that deal the swiftest mortal blows. Inexperienced revolutionaries often think that legal methods of struggle are opportunist because, in this field, the bourgeoisie has most frequently deceived and duped the workers (particularly in "peaceful" and non-revolutionary times), while illegal methods of struggle are revolutionary. That, however, is wrong. The truth is that those parties and leaders are opportunists and traitors to the working class that are unable or unwilling (do not say, "I can’t"; say, "I shan’t") to use illegal methods of struggle in conditions such as those which prevailed, for example, during the imperialist war of 1914-18, when the bourgeoisie of the freest democratic countries most brazenly and brutally deceived the workers, and smothered the truth about the predatory character of the war. But revolutionaries who are incapable of combining illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle are poor revolutionaries indeed. It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist motives. After its victory, the proletariat has to make most strenuous efforts, even the most painful, so as to "liberate" itself from such pseudo-revolutionaries. It is far more difficult—and far more precious—to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist, to be able to champion the interests of the revolution (by propaganda, agitation and organisation) in non-revolutionary bodies, and quite often in downright reactionary bodies, in a non-revolutionary situation, among the masses who are incapable of immediately appreciating the need for revolutionary methods of action. To be able to seek, find and correctly determine the specific path or the particular turn of events that will lead the masses to the real, decisive and final revolutionary struggle—such is the main objective of communism in Western Europe and in America today.
Britain is an example. We cannot tell—no one can tell in advance—how soon a real proletarian revolution will flare up there, and what immediate cause will most serve to rouse, kindle, and impel into the struggle the very wide masses, who are still dormant. Hence, it is our duty to carry on all our preparatory work in such a way as to be "well shod on all four feet" (as the late Plekhanov, when he was a Marxist and revolutionary, was fond of saying). It is possible that the breach will be forced, the ice broken, by a parliamentary crisis, or by a crisis arising from colonial and imperialist contradictions, which are hopelessly entangled and are becoming increasingly painful and acute, or perhaps by some third cause, etc. We are not discussing the kind of struggle that will determine the fate of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain (no Communist has any doubt on that score; for all of us this is a foregone conclusion): what we are discussing is the immediate cause that will bring into motion the now dormant proletarian masses, and lead them right up to revolution. Let us not forget that in the French bourgeois republic, for example, in a situation which, from both the international and the national viewpoints, was a hundred times less revolutionary than it is today, such an "unexpected" and "petty" cause as one of the many thousands of fraudulent machinations of the reactionary military caste (the Dreyfus case [39]) was enough to bring the people to the brink of civil war!
In Great Britain the Communists should constantly, unremittingly and unswervingly utilise parliamentary elections and all the vicissitudes of the Irish, colonial and world-imperialist policy of the British Government, and all other fields, spheres and aspects of public life, and work in all of them in a new way, in a communist way, in the spirit of the Third, not the Second, International. I have neither the time nor the space here to describe the "Russian" "Bolshevik" methods of participation in parliamentary elections and in the parliamentary struggle; I can, however, assure foreign Communists that they were quite unlike the usual West-European parliamentary campaigns. From this the conclusion is often drawn: "Well, that was in Russia, in our country parliamentarianism is different." This is a false conclusion. Communists, adherents of the Third International in all countries, exist for the purpose of changing — all along the line, in all spheres of life—the old socialist, trade unionist, syndicalist, and parliamentary type of work into a new type of work, the communist. In Russia, too, there was always an abundance of opportunism, purely bourgeois sharp practices and capitalist rigging in the elections. In Western Europe and in America, the Communist must learn to create a new, uncustomary, non-opportunist, and non-careerist parliamentarianism; the Communist parties must issue their slogans; true proletarians, with the help of the unorganised and downtrodden poor, should distribute leaflets, canvass workers’ houses and cottages of the rural proletarians and peasants in the remote villages (fortunately there are many times fewer remote villages in Europe than in Russia, and in Britain the number is very small); they should go into the public houses, penetrate into unions, societies and chance gatherings of the common people, and speak to the people, not in learned (or very parliamentary) language, they should not at all strive to "get seats" in parliament, but should everywhere try to get people to think, and draw the masses into the struggle, to take the bourgeoisie at its word and utilise the machinery it has set up, the elections it has appointed, and the appeals it has made to the people; they should try to explain to the people what Bolshevism is, in a way that was never possible (under bourgeois rule) outside of election times (exclusive, of course, of times of big strikes, when in Russia a similar apparatus for widespread popular agitation worked even more intensively). It is very difficult to do this in Western Europe and extremely difficult in America, but it can and must be done, for the objectives of communism cannot be achieved without effort. We must work to accomplish practical tasks, ever more varied and ever more closely connected with all branches of social life, winning branch after branch, and sphere after sphere from the bourgeoisie.
In Great Britain, further, the work of propaganda, agitation and organisation among the armed forces and among the oppressed and underprivileged nationalities in their "own" state (Ireland, the colonies) must also be tackled in a new fashion (one that is not socialist, but communist not reformist, but revolutionary). That is because, in the era of imperialism in general and especially today after a war that was a sore trial to the peoples and has quickly opened their eyes to the truth (i.e., the fact that tens of millions were killed and maimed for the sole purpose of deciding whether the British or the German robbers should plunder the largest number of countries), all these spheres of social life and heavily charged with inflammable material and are creating numerous causes of conflicts, crises and an intensification of the class struggle. We do not and cannot know which spark—of the innumerable sparks that are flying about in all countries as a result of the world economic and political crisis—will kindle the conflagration, in the sense of raising up the masses; we must, therefore, with our new and communist principles, set to work to stir up all and sundry, even the oldest, mustiest and seemingly hopeless spheres, for otherwise we shall not be able to cope with our tasks, shall not be comprehensively prepared, shall not be in possession of all the weapons and shall not prepare ourselves either to gain victory over the bourgeoisie (which arranged all aspects of social life—and has now disarranged them—in its bourgeois fashion), or to bring about the impending communist reorganisation of every sphere of life, following that victory.
Since the proletarian revolution in Russia and its victories on an international scale, expected neither by the bourgeoisie nor the philistines, the entire world has become different, and the bourgeoisie everywhere has become different too. It is terrified of "Bolshevism", exasperated by it almost to the point of frenzy, and for that very reason it is, on the one hand, precipitating the progress of events and, on the other, concentrating on the forcible suppression of Bolshevism, thereby weakening its own position in a number of other fields. In their tactics the Communists in all the advanced countries must take both these circumstances into account.
When the Russian Cadets and Kerensky began furiously to hound the Bolsheviks—especially since April 1917, and more particularly in June and July 1917—they overdid things. Millions of copies of bourgeois papers, clamouring in every key against the Bolsheviks, helped the masses to make an appraisal of Bolshevism, apart from the newspapers, all public life was full of discussions about Bolshevism, as a result of the bourgeoisie’s "zeal". Today the millionaires of all countries are behaving on an international scale in a way that deserves our heartiest thanks. They are hounding Bolshevism with the same zeal as Kerensky and Co. did; they, too, are overdoing things and helping us just as Kerensky did. When the French bourgeoisie makes Bolshevism the central issue in the elections, and accuses the comparatively moderate or vacillating socialists of being Bolsheviks; when the American bourgeoisie, which has completely lost its head, seizes thousands and thousands of people on suspicion of Bolshevism, creates an atmosphere of panic, and broadcasts stories of Bolshevik plots; when, despite all its wisdom and experience, the British bourgeoisie—the most "solid" in the world—makes incredible blunders, founds richly endowed "anti-Bolshevik societies", creates a special literature on Bolshevism, and recruits an extra number of scientists, agitators and clergymen to combat it, we must salute and thank the capitalists. They are working for us. They are helping us to get the masses interested in the essence and significance of Bolshevism, and they cannot do otherwise, for they have already failed to ignore Bolshevism and stifle it.
But at the same time, the bourgeoisie sees practically only one aspect of Bolshevism—insurrection, violence, and terror, it therefore strives to prepare itself for resistance and opposition primarily in this field. It is possible that, in certain instances, in certain countries, and for certain brief periods, it will succeed in this. We must reckon with such an eventuality, and we have absolutely nothing to fear if it does succeed. Communism is emerging in positively every sphere of public life; its beginnings are to be seen literally on all sides. The "contagion" (to use the favourite metaphor of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois police, the one mostly to their liking) has very thoroughly penetrated the organism and has completely permeated it. If special efforts are made to block one of the channels, the "contagion" will find another one, sometimes very unexpectedly. Life will assert itself. Let the bourgeoisie rave, work itself into a frenzy, go to extremes, commit follies, take vengeance on the Bolsheviks in advance, and endeavour to kill off (as in India, Hungary, Germany, etc.) more hundreds, thousands, and hundreds of thousands of yesterday’s and tomorrow’s Bolsheviks. In acting thus, the bourgeoisie is acting as all historically doomed classes have done. Communists should know that, in any case, the future belongs to them; therefore, we can (and must) combine the most intense passion in the great revolutionary struggle, with the coolest and most sober appraisal of the frenzied ravings of the bourgeoisie. The Russian revolution was cruelly defeated in 1905; the Russian Bolsheviks were defeated in July 1917; over 15,000 German Communists were killed as a result of the wily provocation and cunning manoeuvres of Scheidemann and Noske, who were working hand in glove with the bourgeoisie and the monarchist generals, White terror is raging in Finland and Hungary. But in all cases in all countries, communism is becoming steeled and is growing; its roots are so deep that persecution does not weaken or debilitate it but only strengthens it. Only one thing is lacking to enable us to march forward more confidently and firmly to victory, namely, the universal and thorough awareness of all Communists in all countries of the necessity to display the utmost flexibility in their tactics. The communist movement, which is developing magnificently, now lacks, especially in the advanced countries, this awareness and the ability to apply it in practice.
That which happened to such leaders of the Second International, such highly erudite Marxists devoted to socialism as Kautsky, Otto Bauer and others, could (and should) provide a useful lesson. They fully appreciated the need for flexible tactics; they themselves learned Marxist dialectic and taught it to others (and much of what they have done in this field will always remain a valuable contribution to socialist literature); however, in the application of this dialectic they committed such an error, or proved to be so undialectical in practice, so incapable of taking into account the rapid change of forms and the rapid acquisition of new content by the old forms, that their fate is not much more enviable than that of Hyndman, Guesde and Plekhanov. The principal reason for their bankruptcy was that they were hypnotised by a definite form of growth of the working-class movement and socialism, forgot all about the one-sidedness of that form, were afraid to see the break-up which objective conditions made inevitable, and continued to repeat simple and, at first glance, incontestable axioms that had been learned by rote, like: "three is more than two". But politics is more like algebra than like higher than elementary arithmetic, and still more like higher than elementary mathematics. In reality, all the old form of the socialist movement have acquired a new content, and, consequently, a new symbol, the "minus" sign, has appeared in front of all the figures; our wiseacres, however, have stubbornly continued (and still continue) to persuade themselves and others that "minus three" is more than "minus two".
We must see to it that Communists do not make a similar mistake, only in the opposite sense, or rather, we must see to it that a similar mistake, only made in the opposite sense by the "Left" Communists is corrected as soon as possible and eliminated as rapidly and painlessly as possible. It is not only Right doctrinairism that is erroneous; Left doctrinairism is erroneous too. Of course, the mistake of Left doctrinairism in communism is at present a thousand times less dangerous and less significant than that of Right doctrinairism (i.e., social-chauvinism and Kautskyism); but, after all, that is only due to the fact that Left communism is a very young trend, is only just coming into being. It is only for this reason that, under certain conditions, the disease can be easily eradicated, and we must set to work with the utmost energy to eradicate it.
The old forms burst asunder, for it turned out that their new content—anti-proletarian and reactionary—had attained an inordinate development. From the standpoint of the development of international communism, our work today has such a durable and powerful content (for Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat) that it can and must manifest itself in any form, both new and old; it can and must regenerate, conquer and subjugate all forms, not only the new, but also the old—not for the purpose of reconciling itself with the old, but for the purpose of making all and every form—new and old—a weapon for the complete and irrevocable victory of communism.
The Communists must exert every effort to direct the working-class movement and social development in general along the straightest and shortest road to the victory of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat on a world-wide scale. That is an incontestable truth. But it is enough to take one little step farther—a step that might seem to be in the same direction—and truth turns into error. We have only to say, as the German and British Left Communists do, that we recognise only one road, only the direct road, and that we will not permit tacking, conciliatory manoeuvres, or compromising—and it will be a mistake which may cause, and in part has already caused and is causing, very grave prejudices to communism. Right doctrinairism persisted in recognising only the old forms, and became utterly bankrupt, for it did not notice the new content. Left doctrinairism persists in the unconditional repudiation of certain old forms, failing to see that the new content is forcing its way through all and sundry forms, that it is our duty as Communists to master all forms to learn how, with the maximum rapidity, to supplement one form with another, to substitute one for another, and to adapt our tactics to any such change that does not come from our class or from our efforts.
World revolution has been so powerfully stimulated and accelerated by the horrors, vileness and abominations of the world imperialist war and by the hopelessness of the situation created by it, this revolution is developing in scope and depth with such splendid rapidity, with such a wonderful variety of changing forms, with such an instructive practical refutation of all doctrinairism, that there is every reason to hope for a rapid and complete recovery of the international communist movement from the infantile disorder of "Left-wing" communism.
April 27, 1920
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[37] This refers to the counter-revolutionary mutiny organised in August 1917 by the bourgeoisie and the landowners, under the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the tsarist general Kornilov. The conspirators hoped to seize Petrograd, smash the Bolshevik Party, break up the Soviets, establish a military dictatorship in the country, and prepare the restoration of the monarchy.
The mutiny began on August 25 (September 7), Kornilov sending the 3rd Cavalry Corps against Petrograd, where Kornilov counter-revolutionary organisations were ready to act.
The Kornilov mutiny was crushed by the workers and peasants led by the Bolshevik Party. Under pressure from the masses, the Provisional Government was forced to order that Kornilov and his accomplices be arrested and brought to trial.
[38] The reference is to the military-monarchist coup d’tat, the so-called Kapp putsch organised by the German reactionary militarists. It was headed by the monarchist landowner Kapp and Generals Ludendorff, Seeckt and Luttwitz. The conspirators prepared the coup with the connivance of the Social-Democratic government. On March 13, 1920, the mutinous generals moved troops against Berlin and, meeting with no resistance from the government, proclaimed a military dictatorship. The German workers replied with a general strike. Under pressure from the proletariat the KaDT, Rovernment was overthrown on March 17, and the Social-Democrats again took power.
[39] The Dreyfus case—a provocative trial organised in 1894 by the reactionary-monarchist circles of the French militarists. On trial was Dreyfus, a Jewish officer of the French General Staff, falsely accused of espionage and high treason. Dreyfus’s conviction—he was condemned to life imprisonment—was used by the French reactionaries to rouse anti-Semitism and to attack the republican regime and democratic liberties. When, in 1898, socialists and progressive bourgeois democrats such as Emile Zola, Jean Jaures, and Anatole France launched a campaign for Dreyfus’s re-trial, the case became a major political issue and split the country into two camps—the republicans and democrats on the one hand, and a bloc of monarchists, clericals, anti-Semites and nationalists, on the other. Under the pressure of public opinion, Dreyfus was released in 1899, and in 1906 was acquitted by the Court of Cassation and reinstated in the Army.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Ecuador grants asylum to WikiLeaks' Assange-Hands Off Julian Assange!-Hands Off All The Wikileaks Whistleblowers! Free Private Bradley Manning!
Ecuador grants asylum to WikiLeaks' Assange
By RAPHAEL SATTER and RAISSA IOUSSOUF, AP
38 minutes ago
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, second from left, gestures after ...
LONDON — Ecuador said Thursday it was granting asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a decision that thrilled supporters but did not defuse the standoff at the Latin American nation's London embassy, where the 41-year-old Australian has been holed up for almost two months.
Assange's recognition as a political refugee by Ecuador's leftist government was a big symbolic victory for the embattled ex-hacker, but it did little to answer the question: `How will he ever leave the embassy?'
"We're at something of an impasse," extradition lawyer Rebecca Niblock said shortly after the news broke. "The U.K. government will arrest Julian Assange as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy but it's very hard as well to see the Ecuadorean government changing their position."
She said there was practically no precedent for the situation, invoking the case of a Hungarian cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty, who camped out at the U.S. Embassy in Budapest from 1956 to 1971.
"One can't see Mr. Assange doing the same thing," she told BBC television. "One side will have to back down eventually."
The decision to grant Assange asylum was announced Thursday in the Ecuadorean capital of Quito by Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, who said there were "serious indications" that the United States could threaten Assange's "security, integrity and even his life."
Assange's asylum claim centers on claims of sexual assault leveled against the WikiLeaks founder by two women he met while on a trip to Sweden in the wake of some of his organization's spectacular disclosures of U.S. intelligence material. The women accuse him in separate cases of molestation and rape, and Swedish authorities have been seeking his extradition since late 2010.
Assange, who denies the accusations, has expressed fears that the case is the opening gambit in a Washington-orchestrated bid to make him stand trial for his leaks in the United States — a version of events backed by many of his high-profile supporters.
Patino said Thursday that it was clear that if Assange were extradited to the United States "he would not have a fair trial, could be judged by special or military courts and it's not implausible that cruel and degrading treatment could be applied, that he could be condemned to life in prison or the death penalty."
Swedish prosecutors — and Assange's female accusers — have denied that the case is politically motivated.
The Swedish Foreign Ministry said it has summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the decision.
"We want to tell them that it's unacceptable that Ecuador is trying to stop the Swedish judicial process," spokeswoman Anders Jorle said.
Swedish Prosecution Authority spokeswoman Britta von Schoultz said the investigation into Assange was still active.
"The prosecutor has decided, with the court's backing, to issue a European arrest warrant," she said. "When that decision has been made, it's difficult to rewind. For investigative reasons he needs to be here."
British authorities have also indicated little appetite for backing down. In a statement, the country's Foreign Office said it was disappointed by the decision to offer Assange asylum — noting that he had exhausted every appeal possible to British authorities over the course of a roughly 18-month-long legal saga.
"U.K. authorities are under binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden," the ministry said in a statement posted to Twitter. "We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian government's decision this afternoon does not change that."
Britain has threatened to use an obscure 1987 law that officials claim would give British police the right to enter the embassy to arrest Assange, though legal experts called the move unlikely.
______
Associated Press writers Jill Lawless in London and Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By RAPHAEL SATTER and RAISSA IOUSSOUF, AP
38 minutes ago
Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, second from left, gestures after ...
LONDON — Ecuador said Thursday it was granting asylum to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a decision that thrilled supporters but did not defuse the standoff at the Latin American nation's London embassy, where the 41-year-old Australian has been holed up for almost two months.
Assange's recognition as a political refugee by Ecuador's leftist government was a big symbolic victory for the embattled ex-hacker, but it did little to answer the question: `How will he ever leave the embassy?'
"We're at something of an impasse," extradition lawyer Rebecca Niblock said shortly after the news broke. "The U.K. government will arrest Julian Assange as soon as he sets foot outside the embassy but it's very hard as well to see the Ecuadorean government changing their position."
She said there was practically no precedent for the situation, invoking the case of a Hungarian cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty, who camped out at the U.S. Embassy in Budapest from 1956 to 1971.
"One can't see Mr. Assange doing the same thing," she told BBC television. "One side will have to back down eventually."
The decision to grant Assange asylum was announced Thursday in the Ecuadorean capital of Quito by Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, who said there were "serious indications" that the United States could threaten Assange's "security, integrity and even his life."
Assange's asylum claim centers on claims of sexual assault leveled against the WikiLeaks founder by two women he met while on a trip to Sweden in the wake of some of his organization's spectacular disclosures of U.S. intelligence material. The women accuse him in separate cases of molestation and rape, and Swedish authorities have been seeking his extradition since late 2010.
Assange, who denies the accusations, has expressed fears that the case is the opening gambit in a Washington-orchestrated bid to make him stand trial for his leaks in the United States — a version of events backed by many of his high-profile supporters.
Patino said Thursday that it was clear that if Assange were extradited to the United States "he would not have a fair trial, could be judged by special or military courts and it's not implausible that cruel and degrading treatment could be applied, that he could be condemned to life in prison or the death penalty."
Swedish prosecutors — and Assange's female accusers — have denied that the case is politically motivated.
The Swedish Foreign Ministry said it has summoned Ecuador's ambassador over the decision.
"We want to tell them that it's unacceptable that Ecuador is trying to stop the Swedish judicial process," spokeswoman Anders Jorle said.
Swedish Prosecution Authority spokeswoman Britta von Schoultz said the investigation into Assange was still active.
"The prosecutor has decided, with the court's backing, to issue a European arrest warrant," she said. "When that decision has been made, it's difficult to rewind. For investigative reasons he needs to be here."
British authorities have also indicated little appetite for backing down. In a statement, the country's Foreign Office said it was disappointed by the decision to offer Assange asylum — noting that he had exhausted every appeal possible to British authorities over the course of a roughly 18-month-long legal saga.
"U.K. authorities are under binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden," the ministry said in a statement posted to Twitter. "We shall carry out that obligation. The Ecuadorian government's decision this afternoon does not change that."
Britain has threatened to use an obscure 1987 law that officials claim would give British police the right to enter the embassy to arrest Assange, though legal experts called the move unlikely.
______
Associated Press writers Jill Lawless in London and Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
From #Un-Occupied Boston (#Un-Tomemonos Boston)-What Happens When We Do Not Learn The Lessons Of History- The Pre-1848 Socialist Movement-Blanqui 1848-Blanqui’s Response to the Tascherau Document
Click on the headline to link to the Occupy Boston General Assembly Minutes website. Occupy Boston started at 6:00 PM, September 30, 2011.
Markin comment:
I will post any updates from that Occupy Boston site if there are any serious discussions of the way forward for the Occupy movement or, more importantly, any analysis of the now atrophied and dysfunctional General Assembly concept. In the meantime I will continue with the “Lessons From History ’’series started in the fall of 2011 with Karl Marx’s The Civil War In France-1871 (The defense of the Paris Commune). Right now this series is focused on the European socialist movement before the Revolutions of 1848.
****
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend The Occupy Movement And All Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Occupy Protesters Everywhere!
********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points
*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work around. Organize the unorganized- Organize the South- Organize Wal-Mart- Defend the right for public and private workers to unionize.
* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough instead on organizing the unorganized and on other labor-specific causes (good example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio, bad example the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race in June 2012).
*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! U.S. Hands Off The World!
*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!
*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed.
Emblazon on our red banner-Labor and the oppressed must rule!
*************
Blanqui 1848-Blanqui’s Response to the Tascherau Document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written: April 14,1848;
Source: Ecrits sur la révolution. Oeuvres complètes tome I. Editions Galilée, 1977, Paris;
Translated: from the original for marxists.org by Mitch Abidor;
[****] indicates words illegible in the original;
CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2007.
On March 31, 1848 an article written by Jules Taschereau was published in the Revue Retrospective. The article contained documents from the Minister of Interior concerning the failed insurrection of May 12, 1839 and implied that Blanqui was the source of information given the police about the secret revolutionary societies of the period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly a strange piece has appeared in an unknown journal. It accuses the principal leader of the secret societies between 1834-39 of treason.
Blanqui, the supposed author, did not write it, didn’t sign it. No sign reveals its origin or guarantees its authenticity.
It’s a question here of killing a man who had become an obstacle and a danger. Using police and court clerk notes, perhaps even using personal memories, a history of the secret societies of the years 1835-39 was fabricated, and at the top was written: “Blanqui’s Declaration before the Minister of the Interior.”
And so here I am garbed in the shirt of Nessus!
What was the forger’s secret? The use of the first person. How can anyone resist the magical influence of the words I, me that are repeatedly used in the tale as the personification of the same man? It’s him! They cry: he speaks, he tells all, he’s on stage.
It is forgotten that for thirty years, using the same method, and using the notes of chambermaids, literary fabricators have constructed heaps of so-called historical memoirs in the name of every possible person. I cite those of Napoleon published in 1820. The illusion was universal and people barely gave credence to the still living Napoleon’s denial. What was the procedure of the Abbot Pradt, the author of the mystification? A strong style and direct speech.
In the document in the Revue Retrospective replace the pronouns I and me with Blanqui and what is left? An incomplete and irregular account of the secret societies that is of impenetrable paternity. Even more. Substitute the words I and me for every name cited in the piece, suppressing the portrait of the author they make speak, and you will find the same revelation successively made by these various people.
It’s in my style, they say. Take my entire literary baggage: it’s quite thin. Let a jury of writers compare the factum with it and if he finds the least analogy with my style then I stand condemned.
And if it’s not my style, it’s even less my writing. Maybe you dictated it. No! In several places in this piece there is a certain care shown in the style, which doesn’t allow for the improvisation of the dictated word. I had to have written it. Where is the manuscript? I was a prisoner. I couldn’t take it out and they had a capital interest in possessing it.
No signature either! Is this believable? How could this be? Here was an old, dangerous enemy at their mercy, prostrated at the feet of the victors, handing over his past, his person, and they didn’t take the least guarantee, the least pledge, not even his simple signature!
And the very next day this coward stands up to his full height before the Court of Peers! He braves the judges with his words! With his silence! In the middle of the courtroom he justifies his insurrection! He publicly humiliates those whose knees he embraced the day before! How does this excess of cowardice on October 22, far from danger, gibe with the excess of daring on January 14, in the very presence of danger?
Slander is always welcome. Hatred and credulity savor it with joy. It doesn’t have to dress itself up; as long as it kills, what difference does verisimilitude make? Even absurdity doesn’t do it harm. It has a secret advocate in every heart: envy. It is never asked for explanations or proofs: rather its victims are. An entire life of devotion, austerity and suffering are destroyed in a second with a wave of its hand.
Treason! But why? To save my head which, as everyone knows, wasn’t threatened? If the scaffold couldn’t be built when vengeance was at its highest point, could it be raised after eight months of pacification and forgetting? It would at least have been necessary to await its presence. And if an excess of terror so hastily forced me into being an informer how, I ask again, did they not wrench a signature from that moral annihilation?
Did I at least manage to lighten my irons? Mont Saint Michel and the penitentiary at Tours answer this question. Who among my companions has drunk as deeply as me from the cup of anguish? For a year the death agony of a beloved wife, dying far from me in despair, and then four whole years, an eternal tête-à -tête in the solitude of a cell, with the ghost of she who was no more. This was my torture, mine alone, and now I hear ringing in my ears: Death to the traitor! Crucify him!
“You sold your brothers for a good price!” writes the prostituted pen of the orgiasts. Gold so I could go and slowly die in a tomb, between black bread and the pitcher of anguish. And what did I do with this gold? I live in an attic with fifty centimes a day. For entire fortune at present I have sixty francs. And yet it’s me, a sad wretch who drags his wounded body in rags through the streets, who is attacked with the name of sell-out while Louis-Philippe’s valets have metamorphosed into brilliant republican butterflies, fluttering around the carpets of the Hotel de Ville, from the heights of their well nourished virtue branding the poor Job who escaped from the prisons of their master.
Oh sons of man, who forever hold in your hands a stone to throw at the innocent, contempt be upon you!
The most benevolent say: “This must be some letter, some note of Blanqui’s perfidiously transformed into a denunciation.” They vaguely suspect an evil deed, without putting the evidence’s paternity in question. Two things fascinate them: the use of the first person, so powerful in encouraging illusions, and the sudden revelation of this underground world of secret societies.
Good people, don’t be fooled. Not a word of this writing is from my pen. It comes in its entirety from the filthy laboratory of the forgers.
These facts, so new to you, so strange, for the past nine years have been of the domain of publicity, emanating from a circle that includes no less than 1500 people. Among the oldest members of the Families and the Seasons there has been but one cry: “We know all this for a long time; there are at least a hundred of us that could have written this note.’’ And in fact it is nothing but a short, incomplete excerpt from among the countless files the police have on the matter. As for the portraits sketched out in this lampoon the artisan had an embarrassment of riches among the full face, three quarter, and profiles that the cartons furnished on all the principal and secondary characters. The police had the time and the millions needed to put together this collection, not counting what our internecine quarrels provided them gratis.
For the rest, this so-called revelation is not a revelation; it’s a vagabond stroll through the history of the four preceding years. What did the confiding of a thousand stories better known to him than anyone matter to the minister? What was the use of these details that had long since fallen into the dust of the court clerks? Written by hand this piece is conceivable; dictated it is impossible. We accept a manuscript is such as it is, but they would have said to a blabbermouth: “Let’s move on to the subject of the Flood and talk about something else.”
In this endless mass there aren’t twenty lines of revelations. They have to do with the personnel of the Society of the Seasons, reconstituted after May 12. Two men could be found in the new committee: a direct leader of half the society members, who was later recognized to be a police agent, and the other, a man of intelligence and knowledge, who became a royal procurator.
Let’s not forget the spy Teissier, friend and confidant of Lamieussens; Delahodde, member of the Family and the Seasons, living closely with the principal leaders. Here were sufficient sources of information for the rue de Jerusalem.
In summary, nine tenths of the lampoon is nothing but a series of useless divagations. As a denunciation it is an absurdity. But in the hypothesis of a fraud this grand historical exposé is indispensable for displaying the man they want to destroy and to portray his personality in a series of gripping details.
Another observation: there are strange disparities of language among the various parts of this document. Here animated developments, there absolute nudity. What is the source of these sudden changes from a picturesque style to that of an inventory? These contradictions, inexplicable in a narrator who allows his pen or his voice to flow with his thoughts become quite simple in a work fabricated of pieces and morsels.
If the piece is true it reveals an unreserved abandon, a decision to tell everything. What is more, my memories were recent and complete, so I couldn’t err or mislead others. Yet this document is full of errors, of nonsense, of contradictions and absurdities. This being so, how can it be attributed to me?
So I am made to say:
That I created the Society of Families in June 1835. It was founded by Hadot-Desages and I only entered it later.
That its prescribed effectives were about 750 men. Completely false. The number was unlimited.
That there never existed a list of society members accepted, only those presented. Another error. Both existed.
That May 12, 650 Society members gathered, and four lines later 850 presented themselves. A flagrant contradiction, impossible in the space of half a minute.
That on the day of combat we possessed 3000 cartridges. We had 10,000; I knew the exact number.
That the majority of well-dressed republicans produce newspapers. This is quite a strange statistic.
That we hadn’t in advance designated the members of a Provisional Government. The printed proclamation containing the list of names of the members of this government was the main evidence in out trial at the Court of Peers.
That Nettré was killed in May. Nettré is alive; I knew him to be in England and in good health before my arrest, etc.
I am made to speak of M. Emmanuel Arago, who I never saw, who I didn’t know at all; of Vilcoq, about whom I had always held an opinion diametrically opposed to the one they put in my mouth.
Without pausing any longer over details, I will say that all these errors, impossible on my part, are only explicable in the case of a forgery. The arranger worked on a pile of dossiers and reports; all that was needed was an imprecise misunderstood, or incorrectly filed note to create an error, a blunder, nonsense. All the falsehoods I revealed above certainly had their origin in this.
What is more, the miserable fabricator wasn’t able to carry this out to the end without betraying himself. The third part of the document is nothing but a confused mess of bits and pieces without order or meaning, a tissue of notes tied sewed together any which way and deprived of any meaning. The worker stumbles at every step and ends up being caught in his own trap. He forgets that I am on stage, that I speak, and in the middle of my speech he suddenly places a police note directed against me.
Here, the note says, is Blanqui’s escape plan: “He had accepted to reorganize the Society, but he wanted to leave once the organization was set up. He proposed going to Switzerland. After two or three months he lost all direction. We would no longer be forced to ask from him our marching orders.”
So it is I who speak in this way about myself! The Homer of this marvelous Iliad had doubtless fallen asleep at the moment of this heavy fall. Quandunque bonus dormitat Homerus. The wretch didn’t see that he cast into my harangue, and as a part of my harangue, the report of the spy who handed me over to the enemy when I left for Switzerland.
A strange, providential mistake that pinned the crime to the forger’s hand for the greater edification of all.
I’ve finished with slander, let us now pass to the slanderers. It is time to confront them. This pamphlet, their master blow, wasn’t their first attempt, for their hatred is fifteen years old.
The moment for public explanations has arrived. It sounded with the tocsin of February. We must finally bring into broad daylight these quarrels that have for so long simmered in the shadows.
My portrait doesn’t have the honor of figuring in the gallery that a charitable hand has just extracted from the museums of the police. In order to fill in this lacuna I give it here, such as I know it, twenty times traced by my open enemies of today, my hidden enemies of the past.
“Somber spirit, haughty, ferocious, bad tempered, sarcastic, immense ambition, cold, inexorable, pitilessly crushing men in order to pave his route, heart of marble, head of iron, etc”
This profile isn’t lovely. But is there no shading to this painting, and is the cry of hatred the gospel? I call on those who knew my domestic hearth. They know whether all my existence wasn’t concentrated in a deep, lively affection where my forces were ever and again tempered for political struggles.
Death, in smashing this affection, stroke the sole blow, I confess, that could touch my soul. All the rest, slander included, slides off me like a dust storm. I shake off my clothes and I continue on my way.
Sycophants, you who want to put me forward as a moral monster, open the doors to your hearth and home, put your heart’s life on display. Under your hypocritical exterior what would we find? The brutality of the senses, the perversity of the soul. Whited sepulchers, I lift the stone that hides your rot from people’s eyes.
What you pursue in me is revolutionary inflexibility and stubborn devotion to ideas. You want to strike down the indefatigable fighter. What have you done for the past fourteen years? Defect. I was at the breach in 1831 with you; I was there with you in 1839, in 1847. In 1848 here I am against you.
May 12 willed me your hatred as a legacy. The affront of May 12 still burns your cheeks. To believe oneself the republic and not know that the republic gives battle. How forgive the daring sweep of a tail that made your impotence the subject of public laughter. The entire party remembers your rage and insults against the vanquished insurrection. Le National every morning bandaged your wounds with bile and mud, and cowardly insinuations preceded the slanders that finally are bursting upon me, unleashed by vengeance.
During my agony at Mont Saint-Michel these resentments were dormant. A dying man is not fearsome, and with the rumors of my imminent death many quills were perhaps being sharpened for a magnificent funeral oration. But death has retreated and February has changed these quills into daggers.
I arrived the 24th, swept away by the joy of triumph. What an icy reception! One would think I was a ghost suddenly arisen before the new masters. Who are they looking at with that look of aversion and fright? I understand. It’s the hated author of May 12, the clear-sighted and staunch patriot who can’t be made an accomplice or a dupe, who won’t allow the revolution to be stolen. But already the new program of the Hotel de Ville has been decided on:
Change in form but not in content. The edifice of privilege, without a single stone less, with a few additional phrases and banners.
Exile to the Luxembourg awaits those who want more.
So on the 25th Citizen Recurt said to me, “You want to overthrow us?” “No, rather block the road behind you.” And the fight broke out immediately, loyal and moderate on my side, perfidious and implacable on the other.
A thousand rumors are spread about. “He’s mad! Sorrow and then joy have shaken his brain. He’s ill; he’s decomposing, he’s going to die. He’s bloodthirsty! He’s demanding 100,000 heads.”
These rumors spread around Paris and the departments. But up to this point still not a word of the great slander. M. de Lamartine, at the Hotel de Ville, addressed me with these words:
“It is persecution that makes for your martyrdom and your glory.”
Such language is not used concerning an informer.
So once again you lied, sieur [****] in saying that your odious piece, passed around the city since February 24, was in your hands on March 10; your hatred would not have allowed it to slumber for so long and wouldn’t have waited until the 22nd to spread its poison. No, before the 17th you didn’t go so far. Effort can always be measured by the force of an obstacle. I was yet but a hindrance, not yet a danger. The moment for extreme measures had not yet sounded. During this time speech became more venomous, the Central Republican Society attacked with vivacity power’s retrograde demands. The reestablishment of the stamp, the maintenance of the former magistracy, the poor choice of commissioners, the disastrous decrees concerning the alienation of state lands, the anticipated quarterly payments each became in their turn the objects of energetic addresses, voted on my presentation. But our complaints bumped up uselessly against the disdain of bias and did nothing but attract anger, while reaction, supported by the majority in government, advanced rapidly. It was time to stop them. The adjournment of elections to the Constituent Assembly, twice demanded by the Republican Society, had been twice refused.
From March 12-16 at various assemblies of state bodies I proposed the support of the workers’ demands en masse. The proposal was received with enthusiasm.
On the 17th at noon Paris was set in motion and 200,000 men surrounded the Hotel de Ville. At the sight of that living sea, in waves on the squares and quays, with a formidable clamor resistance falls, the retrograde faction disappeared. Everything was promised; everything was granted to the deputation that spoke in the name of the people.
An intrigue strived to falsify the meaning of this great demonstration and see in it nothing but a response to the National Guard’s skirmish. Nothing could be more false. The popular movement had been stopped before the 16th, and its organizers were ignorant of the petty plot of the men in shakos. Chance alone was responsible for bringing together the execution of these two contrary efforts.
The events of the 17th struck the majority of the Provisional Government with terror; it thought it had escaped from a great danger. Absurd reports, and perhaps the awareness of its own sins persuaded it of the existence of plans for its overthrow, of armed violence.
Suspicion fell on me. I was the first, and almost the only one, to have raised the question of the adjournment of elections; I had kept it on the order of the day despite repeated failure, and finally that question had brought 200,000 men onto the public square.
Other influences, which had more collaborated in this great movement more than I, hid themselves before alerted eyes, fixed on one peril alone. It was thus the hostility of the moment, that which had to be smashed at whatever price. From this came two ideas that blossomed at almost the same time: one, that of modifying the government by my accession, the other, born of the fright caused by the first, to crush me with a club.
The entire reactionary faction trembled at the very threat that power was going to fall into the hands of the revolution, and in those lairs of Machiavellianism where the only crime is that of not succeeding a desperate plan was cooked up to ward off the peril and grab victory in hand.
Daring inspired the plotters. Without this determined coup, the popular party would today have been triumphant, reaction wiped out and the republic in full and vigorous march towards the realization of the future.
Look around us: the revolution is stumbling. The mass of its enemies is growing and increases from hour to hour. It is erupting through the breach I left open. I am conscious of this; I bore its flag. If it falls, the republic will follow.
It was I who had to be struck first, and numerous signs served as a prelude to the grand attack. March 19 the rumor spread with rapidity in the faubourg Saint-Antoine that I was a paid agent of the party of Henri V. Upon investigation it was recognized that these statements come from a rabble-rouser devoted to the Paris city hall. Three days later the decisive method was finally found.
And thus the plan for war to death developed. From the 17th to the 22nd the other idea, that of negotiation with the presumed leader of the movement, had also followed its course. The two plots unfurled in parallel.
On the 19th M. X. Durrieu, editor in chief of the Courrier Francais said to me: “M. de Lamartine wishes to come to an agreement with you. He recognizes that the government must be modified. He has decided to throw out the coterie of the National and to join with you and your friends. He will do whatever you wish; he’ll go as far as you. I have been charged with bringing on his behalf words of reconciliation to Ledru-Rollin.”
At first I refused this interview, and only ceded two days later to his repeated pleas. A meeting was set for the 22nd, but at the moment fixed M. X. Durrieu said to me, “It’s not going to happen. Lamartine has changed his mind. He’s made a complete turnabout. He thinks that everything is going fine, that the people are happy, and that things should continue as they are. That man is the very personification of changeability and inconsistency.”
Fine. Let’s not bother talking anymore.
And here is the source of the mystery: it’s the 22nd that the famous piece makes its first appearance. That very day it is brought to the provisional Government. It is passed from hand to hand. Surprise! Exclamations! “Blanqui!” each reader repeats. “Blanqui!” But it’s not his writing. The original must be at the Luxembourg someone says. They doubtless searched the Luxembourg. I’m still waiting for the original.
Let’s return to the dates, since this is the whole trial. The piece appears at the Hotel de Ville the 22nd, not a day sooner. How then could the sieur [****] claim that it was stolen on February 24 from M. Guizot’s office, passed around for a week and put at his disposal around March 10. What? A document of such seriousness would have been passed everywhere from February 24 without anyone knowing about it? M. [****], a close friend of the National, kept it in his wallet for twelve days without breathing a word to anyone and until the 22nd not a sound, not an echo betrayed its existence.
For I repeat: before the 22nd there was no trace of the lampoon.
That day it unexpectedly falls into the midst of several members of the Provisional Government. A coup de theatre and a coup d’etat. At that very instant everything changes. Reaction, almost defeated, raises its head. It appeared that a providential hand had just saved it from shipwreck. Confidence succeeds despair. M. de Lamartine breaks off his negotiations with the public agitator. He is less feared, and they no longer hesitate to falsify the word given to the people. The election isn’t adjourned till the May 31; it was only deferred a few days due to material reasons.
What promptness in exploiting this document! It becomes known the 22nd and the 24th several provincial newspapers reproduce in the same terms the following note emanating from the offices of the National.
“ We could name a certain club president, a fiery democrat who was miserable enough to betray the secrets of his political friends in order to save his own life. The Provisional Government has many pieces of evidence in its hands which are condemn those who want to undermine it as well as the social order that guides us so as to substitute for it a bloody chaos under the pretext of fraternity. It will remain disdainful and magnanimous until the day it is forced to resort to reprisals.”
And so by your own confession the publication of this cowardly lampoon is nothing but a reprisal. It isn’t an act of justice, but an act of revenge. Your goal is to condemn those who want to undermine you, i.e., those who oppose you.
So again it isn’t sieur [****] but the Provisional Government that had pieces of evidence in its hands. Who lied, you or them? It claims to have the evidence, and so do you. It says it is publishing them for historical reasons; you declare you are using them as a means of reprisal against an enemy. Watch out! You seem to be eager for reprisals. Do you need them at whatever cost?
Imposture and ambush; these are the pivots of the intrigue cooked up against a man who disturbs you. Perfect, my good sirs; wretches used to purchasing with all crimes imaginable the favor of those in power forged a poisoned arm for your hatred. What that arm is worth, and whence it comes you know too well, and don’t dare to touch it. But it goes along with the honor of your arrangements. Hidden in the wings. You toss the dagger into the hands of an assassin, laughing in advance at the useless blows your victim will waste on this mannequin.
Unfortunately, iniquity lied to itself. You should have ensured that your two Offices of Fraud were in agreement and not confound yourselves with your own work.
Fear perturbs perfidy’s calculations. Your semi-official note sought to reduce me by this threat of reprisals, tempered with the insolent offer of recourse to your magnanimity. But you weren’t reassured. One can’t walk without care on the sinuous paths of calumny.
My response to intimidation was clear and swift, I think. Evidence in hand, before the public I showed that you had just turned over to Leopold the Belgian workers and refugees.
This proof of an act of coldly premeditated vengeance was greeted with cries of vengeance. This cry again threw terror into the Hotel de Ville; they already heard the rumblings of riot at their doors, and imposture in all its forms was called to the rescue. Rumors spread by a thousand mouths pointed to me as the author of a plot whose goal was the members of the Provisional Government. The news of my arrest circulated in all the clubs.
On the evening of March 30 Citizen X. Durrieu said to me, “Let’s put our cards on the table. I come from the Provisional Government and here’s what I learned: you want to overthrow it and assume a dictatorship. You will no doubt succeed, for the government has no strength, but you will then be destroyed, both you and France. Your project is folly. Renounce it and adopt that which I will propose to you and which brings together all your possibilities. The coterie of the National will be thrown out and you’ll replace it with your friends. Come talk with Ledru-Rollin; this will be a simple thing, since you’re former schoolmates.”
To be sure such proposals surprised me in the presence of the odious rumors spread around Paris. At least they proved to me that a part of the government rejected the slander cooked up by the reactionaries at bay.
An unheard of situation! On one side I am offered a hand to rise to power, and on the other they try to throw me into the abyss. Here the Capitol, there the Tarpeian Rock. Eight whole days this strange struggle took me from the heights to the depths. Finally it appeared that justice and truth won the day. An appointment was set with M. Ledru-Rollin for the 31st. But reaction was on the watch; it understood the imminence of danger. The very day of the 31st the fabricated evidence appeared in the Revue Rétrospective.
The gauntlet was thrown down. A fight to the death was engaged. Republicans, old soldiers of the old cause who have remained faithful to the flag of principle, you who haven’t sold your consciences to the new masters in exchange for honors, money or positions, beware! Let my example be a warning to you. Today it is me, tomorrow it will be you. Woe on those who cause embarrassment. We will all be struck! In the head, the heart, in front, from behind it doesn’t matter: we will be struck!
What is my crime? That of having confronted counter-revolution, of having unmasked its plans for six weeks, and of showing the people the danger around them that is growing, and that will engulf them all.
The wretches! They give orders to their bravi to drag me before the tribunals whose resignation I demanded yesterday. And who will be the accusers, the witnesses, the judges in this trial? Royalty’s henchmen, become the henchmen of reaction. Those who tortured me twenty times will torment me again. Yesterday it was freedom, my life, today it’s my honor; everything must be turned over to them so that they can devour their prey whole. With what pleasure they will tear apart what is left of their old, hated enemy. And all these agents of Louis-Philippe what is the reason they pretend to punish me? I, worn out, my hair turned white in the dungeons of Louis-Philippe! Who would believe this? To have treated with Louis-Philippe! And they set themselves up as avengers of the revolution!
The executioners of patriots, the golden mean’s assassins are now the devotees, the faithful of the Hotel de Ville. The total due has been paid! There they are fulfilling the functions of the Forty-Five for the gentlemen of the Provisional Government, and they’ll assassinate the republicans for the account of the republic, as they have done for so long for the account of the monarchy. Positions, happiness, fortune will soon be theirs. So much audacity six weeks after the barricades. Who could have guessed it?
Reactionaries of the Hotel de Ville, you are cowards! I stand in your way, and you want to kill me, but you don’t dare attack me from the front, so you throw in my path three or four bassets from Louis-Philippe’s pack who are in search of a new kennel. You egg them on from behind, far from the risk of splashes. Kindly accept my sincere compliments.
There are royalists among you. I forgive them. They are avenging the monarchy through one of its bitterest enemies. But there are also republicans, and to them I pose the question, their hands on their consciences: is it thus that they should be treating a veteran who buried half his life, his family, his affections in royalty’s deepest dungeons?
If you had an accusation to make against me it should have been produced in broad daylight, solemnly, and surrounded with all guarantees of certainty, of authenticity. You should have spoken in the name of justice, of morality, without in any way declining the responsibility for such an act.
But you said it yourselves, these are reprisals you are carrying out. All methods are good in crushing a dangerous rival. Success at any price is your doctrine it seems, as it was for your predecessors. It appears that this document was necessary to you. Is fecit cui prodest. The infamy of its origins is betrayed by the shameful twists and turns of its publication. Reactionaries, you are cowards!
L-A Blanqui
La République, April 14,1848
Markin comment:
I will post any updates from that Occupy Boston site if there are any serious discussions of the way forward for the Occupy movement or, more importantly, any analysis of the now atrophied and dysfunctional General Assembly concept. In the meantime I will continue with the “Lessons From History ’’series started in the fall of 2011 with Karl Marx’s The Civil War In France-1871 (The defense of the Paris Commune). Right now this series is focused on the European socialist movement before the Revolutions of 1848.
****
An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!-Defend The Occupy Movement And All Occupiers! Drop All Charges Against All Occupy Protesters Everywhere!
********
Fight-Don’t Starve-We Created The Wealth, Let's Take It Back! Labor And The Oppressed Must Rule!
********
A Five-Point Program As Talking Points
*Jobs For All Now!-“30 For 40”- A historic demand of the labor movement. Thirty hours work for forty hours pay to spread the available work around. Organize the unorganized- Organize the South- Organize Wal-Mart- Defend the right for public and private workers to unionize.
* Defend the working classes! No union dues for Democratic (or the stray Republican) candidates. Spent the dough instead on organizing the unorganized and on other labor-specific causes (good example, the November, 2011 anti-union recall referendum in Ohio, bad example the Wisconsin gubernatorial recall race in June 2012).
*End the endless wars!- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal Of All U.S./Allied Troops (And Mercenaries) From Afghanistan! Hands Off Pakistan! Hands Off Iran! U.S. Hands Off The World!
*Fight for a social agenda for working people!. Quality Healthcare For All! Nationalize the colleges and universities under student-teacher-campus worker control! Forgive student debt! Stop housing foreclosures!
*We created the wealth, let’s take it back. Take the struggle for our daily bread off the historic agenda. Build a workers party that fights for a workers government to unite all the oppressed.
Emblazon on our red banner-Labor and the oppressed must rule!
*************
Blanqui 1848-Blanqui’s Response to the Tascherau Document
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written: April 14,1848;
Source: Ecrits sur la révolution. Oeuvres complètes tome I. Editions Galilée, 1977, Paris;
Translated: from the original for marxists.org by Mitch Abidor;
[****] indicates words illegible in the original;
CopyLeft: Creative Commons (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2007.
On March 31, 1848 an article written by Jules Taschereau was published in the Revue Retrospective. The article contained documents from the Minister of Interior concerning the failed insurrection of May 12, 1839 and implied that Blanqui was the source of information given the police about the secret revolutionary societies of the period.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suddenly a strange piece has appeared in an unknown journal. It accuses the principal leader of the secret societies between 1834-39 of treason.
Blanqui, the supposed author, did not write it, didn’t sign it. No sign reveals its origin or guarantees its authenticity.
It’s a question here of killing a man who had become an obstacle and a danger. Using police and court clerk notes, perhaps even using personal memories, a history of the secret societies of the years 1835-39 was fabricated, and at the top was written: “Blanqui’s Declaration before the Minister of the Interior.”
And so here I am garbed in the shirt of Nessus!
What was the forger’s secret? The use of the first person. How can anyone resist the magical influence of the words I, me that are repeatedly used in the tale as the personification of the same man? It’s him! They cry: he speaks, he tells all, he’s on stage.
It is forgotten that for thirty years, using the same method, and using the notes of chambermaids, literary fabricators have constructed heaps of so-called historical memoirs in the name of every possible person. I cite those of Napoleon published in 1820. The illusion was universal and people barely gave credence to the still living Napoleon’s denial. What was the procedure of the Abbot Pradt, the author of the mystification? A strong style and direct speech.
In the document in the Revue Retrospective replace the pronouns I and me with Blanqui and what is left? An incomplete and irregular account of the secret societies that is of impenetrable paternity. Even more. Substitute the words I and me for every name cited in the piece, suppressing the portrait of the author they make speak, and you will find the same revelation successively made by these various people.
It’s in my style, they say. Take my entire literary baggage: it’s quite thin. Let a jury of writers compare the factum with it and if he finds the least analogy with my style then I stand condemned.
And if it’s not my style, it’s even less my writing. Maybe you dictated it. No! In several places in this piece there is a certain care shown in the style, which doesn’t allow for the improvisation of the dictated word. I had to have written it. Where is the manuscript? I was a prisoner. I couldn’t take it out and they had a capital interest in possessing it.
No signature either! Is this believable? How could this be? Here was an old, dangerous enemy at their mercy, prostrated at the feet of the victors, handing over his past, his person, and they didn’t take the least guarantee, the least pledge, not even his simple signature!
And the very next day this coward stands up to his full height before the Court of Peers! He braves the judges with his words! With his silence! In the middle of the courtroom he justifies his insurrection! He publicly humiliates those whose knees he embraced the day before! How does this excess of cowardice on October 22, far from danger, gibe with the excess of daring on January 14, in the very presence of danger?
Slander is always welcome. Hatred and credulity savor it with joy. It doesn’t have to dress itself up; as long as it kills, what difference does verisimilitude make? Even absurdity doesn’t do it harm. It has a secret advocate in every heart: envy. It is never asked for explanations or proofs: rather its victims are. An entire life of devotion, austerity and suffering are destroyed in a second with a wave of its hand.
Treason! But why? To save my head which, as everyone knows, wasn’t threatened? If the scaffold couldn’t be built when vengeance was at its highest point, could it be raised after eight months of pacification and forgetting? It would at least have been necessary to await its presence. And if an excess of terror so hastily forced me into being an informer how, I ask again, did they not wrench a signature from that moral annihilation?
Did I at least manage to lighten my irons? Mont Saint Michel and the penitentiary at Tours answer this question. Who among my companions has drunk as deeply as me from the cup of anguish? For a year the death agony of a beloved wife, dying far from me in despair, and then four whole years, an eternal tête-à -tête in the solitude of a cell, with the ghost of she who was no more. This was my torture, mine alone, and now I hear ringing in my ears: Death to the traitor! Crucify him!
“You sold your brothers for a good price!” writes the prostituted pen of the orgiasts. Gold so I could go and slowly die in a tomb, between black bread and the pitcher of anguish. And what did I do with this gold? I live in an attic with fifty centimes a day. For entire fortune at present I have sixty francs. And yet it’s me, a sad wretch who drags his wounded body in rags through the streets, who is attacked with the name of sell-out while Louis-Philippe’s valets have metamorphosed into brilliant republican butterflies, fluttering around the carpets of the Hotel de Ville, from the heights of their well nourished virtue branding the poor Job who escaped from the prisons of their master.
Oh sons of man, who forever hold in your hands a stone to throw at the innocent, contempt be upon you!
The most benevolent say: “This must be some letter, some note of Blanqui’s perfidiously transformed into a denunciation.” They vaguely suspect an evil deed, without putting the evidence’s paternity in question. Two things fascinate them: the use of the first person, so powerful in encouraging illusions, and the sudden revelation of this underground world of secret societies.
Good people, don’t be fooled. Not a word of this writing is from my pen. It comes in its entirety from the filthy laboratory of the forgers.
These facts, so new to you, so strange, for the past nine years have been of the domain of publicity, emanating from a circle that includes no less than 1500 people. Among the oldest members of the Families and the Seasons there has been but one cry: “We know all this for a long time; there are at least a hundred of us that could have written this note.’’ And in fact it is nothing but a short, incomplete excerpt from among the countless files the police have on the matter. As for the portraits sketched out in this lampoon the artisan had an embarrassment of riches among the full face, three quarter, and profiles that the cartons furnished on all the principal and secondary characters. The police had the time and the millions needed to put together this collection, not counting what our internecine quarrels provided them gratis.
For the rest, this so-called revelation is not a revelation; it’s a vagabond stroll through the history of the four preceding years. What did the confiding of a thousand stories better known to him than anyone matter to the minister? What was the use of these details that had long since fallen into the dust of the court clerks? Written by hand this piece is conceivable; dictated it is impossible. We accept a manuscript is such as it is, but they would have said to a blabbermouth: “Let’s move on to the subject of the Flood and talk about something else.”
In this endless mass there aren’t twenty lines of revelations. They have to do with the personnel of the Society of the Seasons, reconstituted after May 12. Two men could be found in the new committee: a direct leader of half the society members, who was later recognized to be a police agent, and the other, a man of intelligence and knowledge, who became a royal procurator.
Let’s not forget the spy Teissier, friend and confidant of Lamieussens; Delahodde, member of the Family and the Seasons, living closely with the principal leaders. Here were sufficient sources of information for the rue de Jerusalem.
In summary, nine tenths of the lampoon is nothing but a series of useless divagations. As a denunciation it is an absurdity. But in the hypothesis of a fraud this grand historical exposé is indispensable for displaying the man they want to destroy and to portray his personality in a series of gripping details.
Another observation: there are strange disparities of language among the various parts of this document. Here animated developments, there absolute nudity. What is the source of these sudden changes from a picturesque style to that of an inventory? These contradictions, inexplicable in a narrator who allows his pen or his voice to flow with his thoughts become quite simple in a work fabricated of pieces and morsels.
If the piece is true it reveals an unreserved abandon, a decision to tell everything. What is more, my memories were recent and complete, so I couldn’t err or mislead others. Yet this document is full of errors, of nonsense, of contradictions and absurdities. This being so, how can it be attributed to me?
So I am made to say:
That I created the Society of Families in June 1835. It was founded by Hadot-Desages and I only entered it later.
That its prescribed effectives were about 750 men. Completely false. The number was unlimited.
That there never existed a list of society members accepted, only those presented. Another error. Both existed.
That May 12, 650 Society members gathered, and four lines later 850 presented themselves. A flagrant contradiction, impossible in the space of half a minute.
That on the day of combat we possessed 3000 cartridges. We had 10,000; I knew the exact number.
That the majority of well-dressed republicans produce newspapers. This is quite a strange statistic.
That we hadn’t in advance designated the members of a Provisional Government. The printed proclamation containing the list of names of the members of this government was the main evidence in out trial at the Court of Peers.
That Nettré was killed in May. Nettré is alive; I knew him to be in England and in good health before my arrest, etc.
I am made to speak of M. Emmanuel Arago, who I never saw, who I didn’t know at all; of Vilcoq, about whom I had always held an opinion diametrically opposed to the one they put in my mouth.
Without pausing any longer over details, I will say that all these errors, impossible on my part, are only explicable in the case of a forgery. The arranger worked on a pile of dossiers and reports; all that was needed was an imprecise misunderstood, or incorrectly filed note to create an error, a blunder, nonsense. All the falsehoods I revealed above certainly had their origin in this.
What is more, the miserable fabricator wasn’t able to carry this out to the end without betraying himself. The third part of the document is nothing but a confused mess of bits and pieces without order or meaning, a tissue of notes tied sewed together any which way and deprived of any meaning. The worker stumbles at every step and ends up being caught in his own trap. He forgets that I am on stage, that I speak, and in the middle of my speech he suddenly places a police note directed against me.
Here, the note says, is Blanqui’s escape plan: “He had accepted to reorganize the Society, but he wanted to leave once the organization was set up. He proposed going to Switzerland. After two or three months he lost all direction. We would no longer be forced to ask from him our marching orders.”
So it is I who speak in this way about myself! The Homer of this marvelous Iliad had doubtless fallen asleep at the moment of this heavy fall. Quandunque bonus dormitat Homerus. The wretch didn’t see that he cast into my harangue, and as a part of my harangue, the report of the spy who handed me over to the enemy when I left for Switzerland.
A strange, providential mistake that pinned the crime to the forger’s hand for the greater edification of all.
I’ve finished with slander, let us now pass to the slanderers. It is time to confront them. This pamphlet, their master blow, wasn’t their first attempt, for their hatred is fifteen years old.
The moment for public explanations has arrived. It sounded with the tocsin of February. We must finally bring into broad daylight these quarrels that have for so long simmered in the shadows.
My portrait doesn’t have the honor of figuring in the gallery that a charitable hand has just extracted from the museums of the police. In order to fill in this lacuna I give it here, such as I know it, twenty times traced by my open enemies of today, my hidden enemies of the past.
“Somber spirit, haughty, ferocious, bad tempered, sarcastic, immense ambition, cold, inexorable, pitilessly crushing men in order to pave his route, heart of marble, head of iron, etc”
This profile isn’t lovely. But is there no shading to this painting, and is the cry of hatred the gospel? I call on those who knew my domestic hearth. They know whether all my existence wasn’t concentrated in a deep, lively affection where my forces were ever and again tempered for political struggles.
Death, in smashing this affection, stroke the sole blow, I confess, that could touch my soul. All the rest, slander included, slides off me like a dust storm. I shake off my clothes and I continue on my way.
Sycophants, you who want to put me forward as a moral monster, open the doors to your hearth and home, put your heart’s life on display. Under your hypocritical exterior what would we find? The brutality of the senses, the perversity of the soul. Whited sepulchers, I lift the stone that hides your rot from people’s eyes.
What you pursue in me is revolutionary inflexibility and stubborn devotion to ideas. You want to strike down the indefatigable fighter. What have you done for the past fourteen years? Defect. I was at the breach in 1831 with you; I was there with you in 1839, in 1847. In 1848 here I am against you.
May 12 willed me your hatred as a legacy. The affront of May 12 still burns your cheeks. To believe oneself the republic and not know that the republic gives battle. How forgive the daring sweep of a tail that made your impotence the subject of public laughter. The entire party remembers your rage and insults against the vanquished insurrection. Le National every morning bandaged your wounds with bile and mud, and cowardly insinuations preceded the slanders that finally are bursting upon me, unleashed by vengeance.
During my agony at Mont Saint-Michel these resentments were dormant. A dying man is not fearsome, and with the rumors of my imminent death many quills were perhaps being sharpened for a magnificent funeral oration. But death has retreated and February has changed these quills into daggers.
I arrived the 24th, swept away by the joy of triumph. What an icy reception! One would think I was a ghost suddenly arisen before the new masters. Who are they looking at with that look of aversion and fright? I understand. It’s the hated author of May 12, the clear-sighted and staunch patriot who can’t be made an accomplice or a dupe, who won’t allow the revolution to be stolen. But already the new program of the Hotel de Ville has been decided on:
Change in form but not in content. The edifice of privilege, without a single stone less, with a few additional phrases and banners.
Exile to the Luxembourg awaits those who want more.
So on the 25th Citizen Recurt said to me, “You want to overthrow us?” “No, rather block the road behind you.” And the fight broke out immediately, loyal and moderate on my side, perfidious and implacable on the other.
A thousand rumors are spread about. “He’s mad! Sorrow and then joy have shaken his brain. He’s ill; he’s decomposing, he’s going to die. He’s bloodthirsty! He’s demanding 100,000 heads.”
These rumors spread around Paris and the departments. But up to this point still not a word of the great slander. M. de Lamartine, at the Hotel de Ville, addressed me with these words:
“It is persecution that makes for your martyrdom and your glory.”
Such language is not used concerning an informer.
So once again you lied, sieur [****] in saying that your odious piece, passed around the city since February 24, was in your hands on March 10; your hatred would not have allowed it to slumber for so long and wouldn’t have waited until the 22nd to spread its poison. No, before the 17th you didn’t go so far. Effort can always be measured by the force of an obstacle. I was yet but a hindrance, not yet a danger. The moment for extreme measures had not yet sounded. During this time speech became more venomous, the Central Republican Society attacked with vivacity power’s retrograde demands. The reestablishment of the stamp, the maintenance of the former magistracy, the poor choice of commissioners, the disastrous decrees concerning the alienation of state lands, the anticipated quarterly payments each became in their turn the objects of energetic addresses, voted on my presentation. But our complaints bumped up uselessly against the disdain of bias and did nothing but attract anger, while reaction, supported by the majority in government, advanced rapidly. It was time to stop them. The adjournment of elections to the Constituent Assembly, twice demanded by the Republican Society, had been twice refused.
From March 12-16 at various assemblies of state bodies I proposed the support of the workers’ demands en masse. The proposal was received with enthusiasm.
On the 17th at noon Paris was set in motion and 200,000 men surrounded the Hotel de Ville. At the sight of that living sea, in waves on the squares and quays, with a formidable clamor resistance falls, the retrograde faction disappeared. Everything was promised; everything was granted to the deputation that spoke in the name of the people.
An intrigue strived to falsify the meaning of this great demonstration and see in it nothing but a response to the National Guard’s skirmish. Nothing could be more false. The popular movement had been stopped before the 16th, and its organizers were ignorant of the petty plot of the men in shakos. Chance alone was responsible for bringing together the execution of these two contrary efforts.
The events of the 17th struck the majority of the Provisional Government with terror; it thought it had escaped from a great danger. Absurd reports, and perhaps the awareness of its own sins persuaded it of the existence of plans for its overthrow, of armed violence.
Suspicion fell on me. I was the first, and almost the only one, to have raised the question of the adjournment of elections; I had kept it on the order of the day despite repeated failure, and finally that question had brought 200,000 men onto the public square.
Other influences, which had more collaborated in this great movement more than I, hid themselves before alerted eyes, fixed on one peril alone. It was thus the hostility of the moment, that which had to be smashed at whatever price. From this came two ideas that blossomed at almost the same time: one, that of modifying the government by my accession, the other, born of the fright caused by the first, to crush me with a club.
The entire reactionary faction trembled at the very threat that power was going to fall into the hands of the revolution, and in those lairs of Machiavellianism where the only crime is that of not succeeding a desperate plan was cooked up to ward off the peril and grab victory in hand.
Daring inspired the plotters. Without this determined coup, the popular party would today have been triumphant, reaction wiped out and the republic in full and vigorous march towards the realization of the future.
Look around us: the revolution is stumbling. The mass of its enemies is growing and increases from hour to hour. It is erupting through the breach I left open. I am conscious of this; I bore its flag. If it falls, the republic will follow.
It was I who had to be struck first, and numerous signs served as a prelude to the grand attack. March 19 the rumor spread with rapidity in the faubourg Saint-Antoine that I was a paid agent of the party of Henri V. Upon investigation it was recognized that these statements come from a rabble-rouser devoted to the Paris city hall. Three days later the decisive method was finally found.
And thus the plan for war to death developed. From the 17th to the 22nd the other idea, that of negotiation with the presumed leader of the movement, had also followed its course. The two plots unfurled in parallel.
On the 19th M. X. Durrieu, editor in chief of the Courrier Francais said to me: “M. de Lamartine wishes to come to an agreement with you. He recognizes that the government must be modified. He has decided to throw out the coterie of the National and to join with you and your friends. He will do whatever you wish; he’ll go as far as you. I have been charged with bringing on his behalf words of reconciliation to Ledru-Rollin.”
At first I refused this interview, and only ceded two days later to his repeated pleas. A meeting was set for the 22nd, but at the moment fixed M. X. Durrieu said to me, “It’s not going to happen. Lamartine has changed his mind. He’s made a complete turnabout. He thinks that everything is going fine, that the people are happy, and that things should continue as they are. That man is the very personification of changeability and inconsistency.”
Fine. Let’s not bother talking anymore.
And here is the source of the mystery: it’s the 22nd that the famous piece makes its first appearance. That very day it is brought to the provisional Government. It is passed from hand to hand. Surprise! Exclamations! “Blanqui!” each reader repeats. “Blanqui!” But it’s not his writing. The original must be at the Luxembourg someone says. They doubtless searched the Luxembourg. I’m still waiting for the original.
Let’s return to the dates, since this is the whole trial. The piece appears at the Hotel de Ville the 22nd, not a day sooner. How then could the sieur [****] claim that it was stolen on February 24 from M. Guizot’s office, passed around for a week and put at his disposal around March 10. What? A document of such seriousness would have been passed everywhere from February 24 without anyone knowing about it? M. [****], a close friend of the National, kept it in his wallet for twelve days without breathing a word to anyone and until the 22nd not a sound, not an echo betrayed its existence.
For I repeat: before the 22nd there was no trace of the lampoon.
That day it unexpectedly falls into the midst of several members of the Provisional Government. A coup de theatre and a coup d’etat. At that very instant everything changes. Reaction, almost defeated, raises its head. It appeared that a providential hand had just saved it from shipwreck. Confidence succeeds despair. M. de Lamartine breaks off his negotiations with the public agitator. He is less feared, and they no longer hesitate to falsify the word given to the people. The election isn’t adjourned till the May 31; it was only deferred a few days due to material reasons.
What promptness in exploiting this document! It becomes known the 22nd and the 24th several provincial newspapers reproduce in the same terms the following note emanating from the offices of the National.
“ We could name a certain club president, a fiery democrat who was miserable enough to betray the secrets of his political friends in order to save his own life. The Provisional Government has many pieces of evidence in its hands which are condemn those who want to undermine it as well as the social order that guides us so as to substitute for it a bloody chaos under the pretext of fraternity. It will remain disdainful and magnanimous until the day it is forced to resort to reprisals.”
And so by your own confession the publication of this cowardly lampoon is nothing but a reprisal. It isn’t an act of justice, but an act of revenge. Your goal is to condemn those who want to undermine you, i.e., those who oppose you.
So again it isn’t sieur [****] but the Provisional Government that had pieces of evidence in its hands. Who lied, you or them? It claims to have the evidence, and so do you. It says it is publishing them for historical reasons; you declare you are using them as a means of reprisal against an enemy. Watch out! You seem to be eager for reprisals. Do you need them at whatever cost?
Imposture and ambush; these are the pivots of the intrigue cooked up against a man who disturbs you. Perfect, my good sirs; wretches used to purchasing with all crimes imaginable the favor of those in power forged a poisoned arm for your hatred. What that arm is worth, and whence it comes you know too well, and don’t dare to touch it. But it goes along with the honor of your arrangements. Hidden in the wings. You toss the dagger into the hands of an assassin, laughing in advance at the useless blows your victim will waste on this mannequin.
Unfortunately, iniquity lied to itself. You should have ensured that your two Offices of Fraud were in agreement and not confound yourselves with your own work.
Fear perturbs perfidy’s calculations. Your semi-official note sought to reduce me by this threat of reprisals, tempered with the insolent offer of recourse to your magnanimity. But you weren’t reassured. One can’t walk without care on the sinuous paths of calumny.
My response to intimidation was clear and swift, I think. Evidence in hand, before the public I showed that you had just turned over to Leopold the Belgian workers and refugees.
This proof of an act of coldly premeditated vengeance was greeted with cries of vengeance. This cry again threw terror into the Hotel de Ville; they already heard the rumblings of riot at their doors, and imposture in all its forms was called to the rescue. Rumors spread by a thousand mouths pointed to me as the author of a plot whose goal was the members of the Provisional Government. The news of my arrest circulated in all the clubs.
On the evening of March 30 Citizen X. Durrieu said to me, “Let’s put our cards on the table. I come from the Provisional Government and here’s what I learned: you want to overthrow it and assume a dictatorship. You will no doubt succeed, for the government has no strength, but you will then be destroyed, both you and France. Your project is folly. Renounce it and adopt that which I will propose to you and which brings together all your possibilities. The coterie of the National will be thrown out and you’ll replace it with your friends. Come talk with Ledru-Rollin; this will be a simple thing, since you’re former schoolmates.”
To be sure such proposals surprised me in the presence of the odious rumors spread around Paris. At least they proved to me that a part of the government rejected the slander cooked up by the reactionaries at bay.
An unheard of situation! On one side I am offered a hand to rise to power, and on the other they try to throw me into the abyss. Here the Capitol, there the Tarpeian Rock. Eight whole days this strange struggle took me from the heights to the depths. Finally it appeared that justice and truth won the day. An appointment was set with M. Ledru-Rollin for the 31st. But reaction was on the watch; it understood the imminence of danger. The very day of the 31st the fabricated evidence appeared in the Revue Rétrospective.
The gauntlet was thrown down. A fight to the death was engaged. Republicans, old soldiers of the old cause who have remained faithful to the flag of principle, you who haven’t sold your consciences to the new masters in exchange for honors, money or positions, beware! Let my example be a warning to you. Today it is me, tomorrow it will be you. Woe on those who cause embarrassment. We will all be struck! In the head, the heart, in front, from behind it doesn’t matter: we will be struck!
What is my crime? That of having confronted counter-revolution, of having unmasked its plans for six weeks, and of showing the people the danger around them that is growing, and that will engulf them all.
The wretches! They give orders to their bravi to drag me before the tribunals whose resignation I demanded yesterday. And who will be the accusers, the witnesses, the judges in this trial? Royalty’s henchmen, become the henchmen of reaction. Those who tortured me twenty times will torment me again. Yesterday it was freedom, my life, today it’s my honor; everything must be turned over to them so that they can devour their prey whole. With what pleasure they will tear apart what is left of their old, hated enemy. And all these agents of Louis-Philippe what is the reason they pretend to punish me? I, worn out, my hair turned white in the dungeons of Louis-Philippe! Who would believe this? To have treated with Louis-Philippe! And they set themselves up as avengers of the revolution!
The executioners of patriots, the golden mean’s assassins are now the devotees, the faithful of the Hotel de Ville. The total due has been paid! There they are fulfilling the functions of the Forty-Five for the gentlemen of the Provisional Government, and they’ll assassinate the republicans for the account of the republic, as they have done for so long for the account of the monarchy. Positions, happiness, fortune will soon be theirs. So much audacity six weeks after the barricades. Who could have guessed it?
Reactionaries of the Hotel de Ville, you are cowards! I stand in your way, and you want to kill me, but you don’t dare attack me from the front, so you throw in my path three or four bassets from Louis-Philippe’s pack who are in search of a new kennel. You egg them on from behind, far from the risk of splashes. Kindly accept my sincere compliments.
There are royalists among you. I forgive them. They are avenging the monarchy through one of its bitterest enemies. But there are also republicans, and to them I pose the question, their hands on their consciences: is it thus that they should be treating a veteran who buried half his life, his family, his affections in royalty’s deepest dungeons?
If you had an accusation to make against me it should have been produced in broad daylight, solemnly, and surrounded with all guarantees of certainty, of authenticity. You should have spoken in the name of justice, of morality, without in any way declining the responsibility for such an act.
But you said it yourselves, these are reprisals you are carrying out. All methods are good in crushing a dangerous rival. Success at any price is your doctrine it seems, as it was for your predecessors. It appears that this document was necessary to you. Is fecit cui prodest. The infamy of its origins is betrayed by the shameful twists and turns of its publication. Reactionaries, you are cowards!
L-A Blanqui
La République, April 14,1848
*From The Pen Of Vladimir Lenin- From “Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder (1920)-"Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britian
Click on the headline to link to the Lenin Internet Archives.
Markin comment:
This article goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts.
*******
With this now-classic work, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions in 12 years—in a manner that European Communists could relate to, for it was to them he was speaking. He also further develops the theory of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means and stresses that the primary danger for the working-class movement in general is opportunism on the one hand, and anti-Marxist ultra-leftism on the other.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder was written in April, and the appendix was written on May 12, 1920. It came out on June 8-10 in Russian and in July was published in German, English and French. Lenin gave personal attention to the book’s type-setting and printing schedule so that it would be published before the opening of the Second Congress of the Communist International, each delegate receiving a copy. Between July and November 1920, the book was re-published in Leipzig, Paris and London, in the German, French and English languages respectively.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder is published according to the first edition print, the proofs of which were read by Lenin himself.
**********
"Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britian
There is no Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a fresh, broad, powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers, which justifies the best hopes. There are several political parties and organisations (the British Socialist Party [35], the Socialist Labour Party, the South Wales Socialist Society, the Workers’ Socialist Federation [36]), which desire to form a Communist Party and are already negotiating among themselves to this end. In its issue of February 21, 1920, Vol. VI, No. 48, The Workers’ Dreadnought, weekly organ of the last of the organisations mentioned, carried an article by the editor, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, entitled "Towards a Communist Party". The article outlines the progress of the negotiations between the four organisations mentioned, for the formation of a united Communist Party, on the basis of affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It appears that one of the greatest obstacles to the immediate formation of a united Communist Party is presented by the disagreement on the questions of participation in Parliament and on whether the new Communist Party should affiliate to the old, trade-unionist, opportunist and social-chauvinist Labour Party, which is mostly made up of trade unions. The Workers’ Socialist Federation and the Socialist Labour Party *7 are opposed to taking part in parliamentary elections and in Parliament, and they are opposed to affiliation to the Labour Party; in this they disagree with all or with most of the members of the British Socialist Party, which they regard as the "Right wing of the Communist parties" in Great Britain. (Page 5, Sylvia Pankhurst’s article.)
Thus, the main division is the same as in Germany, notwithstanding the enormous difference in the forms in which the disagreements manifest themselves (in Germany the form is far closer to the "Russian" than it is in Great Britain), and in a number of other things. Let us examine the arguments of the "Lefts".
On the question of participation in Parliament, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst refers to an article in the same issue, by Comrade Gallacher, who writes in the name of the Scottish Workers’ Council in Glasgow.
"The above council," he writes, "is definitely anti-parliamentarian, and has behind it the Left wing of the various political bodies. We represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland, striving continually to build up a revolutionary organisation within the industries [in various branches of production], and a Communist Party, based on social committees, throughout the country. For a considerable time we have been sparring with the official parliamentarians. We have not considered it necessary to declare open warfare on them, and they are afraid to open an attack on us.
"But this state of affairs cannot long continue. We are winning all along the line.
"The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the thought of Parliament, and the Soviets [the Russian word transliterated into English is used] or Workers’ Councils are being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not [all italics are the author’s] give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going to be a difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more impelling force than their regard for the revolution. Any support given to parliamentarism is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary. The official I.L.P. is more and more coming under the control of middle-class Liberals, who ... have found their ’spiritual home’ in the camp of Messrs. MacDonald, Snowden and Co. The official I.L.P. is bitterly hostile to the Third International, the rank and file is for it. Any support to the parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former. The B.S.P. doesn’t count at all here.... What is wanted here is a sound revolutionary industrial organisation, and a Communist Party working along clear, well-defined, scientific lines. If our comrades can assist us in building these, we will take their help gladly; if they cannot, for God’s sake let them keep out altogether, lest they betray the revolution by lending their support to the reactionaries, who are so eagerly clamouring for parliamentary ’honours’ (?) [the query mark is the author’s] and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as effectively as the ’boss’ class politicians themselves."
In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank-and-file workers who are only just beginning to accept communism. This temper is highly gratifying and valuable; we must learn to appreciate and support it for, in its absence, it would be hopeless to expect the victory of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain, or in any other country for that matter. People who can give expression to this temper of the masses, and are able to evoke such a temper (which is very often dormant, unconscious and latent) among the masses, should be appreciated and given every assistance. At the same time, we must tell them openly and frankly that a state of mind is by itself insufficient for leadership of the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and that the cause of the revolution may well be harmed by certain errors that people who are most devoted to the cause of the revolution are about to commit, or are committing. Comrade Gallacher’s letter undoubtedly reveals the rudiments of all the mistakes that are being made by the German "Left" Communists and were made by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in 1908 and 1918.
The writer of the letter is full of a noble and working-class hatred for the bourgeois "class politicians" (a hatred understood and shared, however, not only by proletarians but by all working people, by all Kleinen Leuten to use the German expression). In a representative of the oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the "beginning of all wisdom", the basis of any socialist and communist movement and of its success. The writer, however, has apparently lost sight of the fact that politics is a science and an art that does not fall from the skies or come gratis, and that, if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must train its own proletarian "class politicians", of a kind in no way inferior to bourgeois politicians.
The writer of the letter fully realises that only workers’ Soviets, not parliament, can be the instrument enabling the proletariat to achieve its aims; those who have failed to understand this are, of course, out-and-out reactionaries, even if they are most highly educated people, most experienced politicians, most sincere socialists, most erudite Marxists, and most honest citizens and fathers of families. But the writer of the letter does not even ask—it does not occur to him to ask—whether it is possible to bring about the Soviets’ victory over parliament without getting pro-Soviet politicians into parliament, without disintegrating parliamentarianism from within, without working within parliament for the success of the Soviets in their forthcoming task of dispersing parliament. Yet the writer of the letter expresses the absolutely correct idea that the Communist Party in Great Britain must act on scientific principles. Science demands, first, that the experience of other countries be taken into account especially if these other countries, which are also capitalist, are undergoing, or have recently undergone, a very similar experience; second, it demands that account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country, and also that policy should not be determined only by the desires and views, by the degree of class-consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone.
It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to "rule" along the old bourgeois lines, and that when they are in power they will certainly behave like the Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it does not at all follow that to support them means treachery to the revolution; what does follow is that, in the interests of the revolution, working-class revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support. To explain this idea, I shall take two contemporary British political documents: (1) the speech delivered by Prime Minister Lloyd George on March 18, 1920 (as reported in The Manchester Guardian of March 19, 1920), and (2) the arguments of a "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in the article mentioned above.
In his speech Lloyd George entered into a polemic with Asquith (who had been especially invited to this meeting but declined to attend) and with those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but closer relations with the Labour Party. (In the above-quoted letter, Comrade Gallacher also points to the fact that Liberals are joining the Independent Labour Party.) Lloyd George argued that a coalition—and a close coalition at that—between the Liberals and the Conservatives was essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party, which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist" and which is working for the "common ownership" of the means of production. "It is ... known as communism in France," the leader of the British bourgeoisie said, putting it popularly for his audience, Liberal M.P.s who probably never knew it before. In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is called Bolshevism, he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable on principle, Lloyd George explained, because they stand in principle for private property. "Civilisation is in jeopardy," the speaker declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite....
"...If you go to the agricultural areas," said Lloyd George, "I agree you have the old party divisions as strong as ever. They are removed from the danger. It does not walk their lanes. But when they see it they will be as strong as some of these industrial constituencies are now. Four-fifths of this country is industrial and commercial; hardly one-fifth is agricultural. It is one of the things I have constantly in my mind when I think of the dangers of the future here. In France the population is agricultural, and you have a solid body of opinion which does not move very rapidly, and which is not very easily excited by revolutionary movements. That is not the case here. This country is more top-heavy than any country in the world, and if it begins to rock, the crash here, for that reason, will be greater than in any land."
From this the reader will see that Mr. Lloyd George is not only a very intelligent man, but one who has also learned a great deal from the Marxists. We too have something to learn from Lloyd George.
Of definite interest is the following episode, which occurred in the course of the discussion after Lloyd George’s speech:
"Mr. Wallace, M.P.: I should like to ask what the Prime Minister considers the effect might be in the industrial constituencies upon the industrial workers, so many of whom are Liberals at the present time and from whom we get so much support. Would not a possible result be to cause an immediate overwhelming accession of strength to the Labour Party from men who at present are our cordial supporters?
"The Prime Minister: I take a totally different view. The fact that Liberals are fighting among themselves undoubtedly drives a very considerable number of Liberals in despair to the Labour Party, where you get a considerable body of Liberals, very able men, whose business it is to discredit the Government. The result is undoubtedly to bring a good accession of public sentiment to the Labour Party. It does not go to the Liberals who are outside, it goes to the Labour Party, the by-elections show that."
It may be said, in passing, that this argument shows in particular how muddled even the most intelligent members of the bourgeoisie have become and how they cannot help committing irreparable blunders. That, in fact, is what will bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie. Our people, however’ may commit blunders (provided, of course, that they are not too serious and are rectified in time) and yet in the long run, will prove the victors.
The second political document is the following argument advanced by Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, a "Left" Communist:
"... Comrade Inkpin [the General Secretary of the British Socialist Party] refers to the Labour Party as ’the main body of the working-class movement’. Another comrade of the British Socialist Party, at the Third International, just held, put the British Socialist Party position more strongly. He said: ’We regard the Labour Party as the organised working class.’
"We do not take this view of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is very large numerically though its membership is to a great extent quiescent and apathetic, consisting of men and women who have joined the trade unions because their workmates are trade unionists, and to share the friendly benefits.
"But we recognise that the great size of the Labour Party is also due to the fact that it is the creation of a school of thought beyond which the majority of the British working class has not yet emerged, though great changes are at work in the mind of the people which will presently alter this state of affairs....
"The British Labour Party, like the social-patriotic organisations of other countries, will, in the natural development of society, inevitably come into power. It is for the Communists to build up the forces that will overthrow the social patriots, and in this country we must not delay or falter in that work.
"We must not dissipate our energy in adding to the strength of the Labour Party; its rise to power is inevitable. We must concentrate on making a communist movement that will vanquish it. The Labour Party will soon be forming a government, the revolutionary opposition must make ready to attack it" [[RjC: could be incomplete here; check]]
Thus the liberal bourgeoisie are abandoning the historical system of "two parties" (of exploiters), which has been hallowed by centuries of experience and has been extremely advantageous to the exploiters, and consider it necessary for these two parties to join forces against the Labour Party. A number of Liberals are deserting to the Labour Party like rats from a sinking ship. The Left Communists believe that the transfer of power to the Labour Party is inevitable and admit that it now has the backing of most workers. From this they draw the strange conclusion which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst formulates as follows:
"The Communist Party must not compromise.... The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate, its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution."
On the contrary, the fact that most British workers still follow the lead of the British Kerenskys or Scheidemanns and have not yet had experience of a government composed of these people—an experience which was necessary in Russia and Germany so as to secure the mass transition of the workers to communism—undoubtedly indicates that the British Communists should participate in parliamentary action, that they should, from within parliament, help the masses of the workers see the results of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice, and that they should help the Hendersons and Snowdens defeat the united forces of Lloyd George and Churchill. To act otherwise would mean hampering the cause of the revolution, since revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class, a change brought about by the political experience of the masses, never by propaganda alone. "To lead the way without compromises, without turning"—this slogan is obviously wrong if it comes from a patently impotent minority of the workers who know (or at all events should know) that given a Henderson and Snowden victory over Lloyd George and Churchill, the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and will begin to support communism (or at all events will adopt an attitude of neutrality, and, in the main, of sympathetic neutrality, towards the Communists). It is as though 10,000 soldiers were to hurl themselves into battle against an enemy force of 50,000, when it would be proper to "halt", "take evasive action", or even effect a "compromise" so as to gain time until the arrival of the 100,000 reinforcements that are on their way but cannot go into action immediately. That is intellectualist childishness, not the serious tactics of a revolutionary class.
The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old way and the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.
Incidentally, as can also be seen from Lloyd George’s speech, both conditions for a successful proletarian revolution are clearly maturing in Great Britain. The errors of the Left Communists are particularly dangerous at present, because certain revolutionaries are not displaying a sufficiently thoughtful, sufficiently attentive, sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently shrewd attitude toward each of these conditions. If we are the party of the revolutionary class, and not merely a revolutionary group, and if we want the masses to follow us (and unless we achieve that, we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags), we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory!); second, we must help the majority of the working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right, i.e., that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is inevitable; third, we must bring nearer the moment when, on the basis of the disappointment of most of the workers in the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once; because if the most astute and solid Lloyd George, that big, not petty, bourgeois, is displaying consternation and is more and more weakening himself (and the bourgeoisie as a whole) by his "friction" with Churchill today and with Asquith tomorrow, how much greater will be the consternation of a Henderson government!
I will put it more concretely. In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all very weak, and some of them very, very weak) into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party should propose the following "compromise" election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers’ votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens accept a bloc on these terms, we shall be the gainers, because the number of parliamentary seats is of no importance to us; we are not out for seats. We shall yield on this point (whilst the Hendersons and especially their new friends—or new masters —the Liberals who have joined the Independent Labour Party are most eager to get seats). We shall be the gainers, because we shall carry our agitation among the masses at a time when Lloyd George himself has "incensed" them, and we shall not only be helping the Labour Party to establish its government sooner, but shall also be helping the masses sooner to understand the communist propaganda that we shall carry on against the Hendersons, without any reticence or omission.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject a bloc with us on these terms, we shall gain still more, for we shall at once have shown the masses (note that, even in the purely Menshevik and completely opportunist Independent Labour Party, the rank and file are in favour of Soviets) that the Hendersons prefer their close relations with the capitalists to the unity of all the workers. We shall immediately gain in the eyes- of the masses, who, particularly after the brilliant, highly correct and highly useful (to communism) explanations given by Lloyd George, will be sympathetic to the idea of uniting all the workers against the Lloyd George-Conservative alliance. We shall gain immediately, because we shall have demonstrated to the masses that the Hendersons and the Snowdens are afraid to beat Lloyd George, afraid to assume power alone, and are striving to secure the secret support of Lloyd George, who is openly extending a hand to the Conservatives, against the Labour Party. It should be noted that in Russia, after the revolution of February 27, 1917 (old style), the Bolsheviks’ propaganda against the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries (i.e., the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens) derived benefit precisely from a circumstance of this kind. We said to the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries: assume full power without the bourgeoisie, because you have a majority in the Soviets (at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, in June 1917, the Bolsheviks had only 13 per cent of the votes). But the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens were afraid to assume power without the bourgeoisie, and when the bourgeoisie held up the elections to the Constituent Assembly, knowing full well that the elections would give a majority to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks *8 (who formed a close political bloc and in fact represented only petty-bourgeois democracy), the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were unable energetically and consistently to oppose these delays.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject a bloc with the Communists, the latter will immediately gain by winning the sympathy of the masses and discrediting the Hendersons and Snowdens, if, as a result, we do lose a few parliamentary seats, it is a matter of no significance to us. We would put up our candidates in a very few but absolutely safe constituencies, namely, constituencies where our candidatures would not give any seats to the Liberals at the expense of the Labour candidates. We would take part in the election campaign, distribute leaflets agitating for communism, and, in all constituencies where we have no candidates, we would urge the electors to vote for the Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidate. Comrades Sylvia Pankhurst and Gallacher are mistaken in thinking that this is a betrayal of communism, or a renunciation of the struggle against the social-traitors. On the contrary, the cause of communist revolution would undoubtedly gain thereby.
At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois "democracy"), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.
If the objection is raised that these tactics are too "subtle" or too complex for the masses to understand, that these tactics will split and scatter our forces, will prevent us from concentrating them on Soviet revolution, etc., I will reply to the "Left objectors: don’t ascribe your doctrinairism to the masses! The masses in Russia are no doubt no better educated than the masses in Britain; if anything, they are less so. Yet the masses understood the Bolsheviks, and the fact that, in September 1917, on the eve of the Soviet revolution, the Bolsheviks put up their candidates for a bourgeois parliament (the Constituent Assembly) and on the day after the Soviet revolution, in November 1917, took part in the elections to this Constituent Assembly, which they got rid of on January 5, 1918—this did not hamper the Bolsheviks, but, on the contrary, helped them.
I cannot deal here with the second point of disagreement among the British Communists—the question of affiliation or non-affiliation to the Labour Party. I have too little material at my disposal on this question, which is highly complex because of the unique character of the British Labour Party, whose very structure is so unlike that of the political parties usual in the European continent. It is beyond doubt, however, first, that in this question, too, those who try to deduce the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat from principles such as: "The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution"—will inevitably fall into error. Such principles are merely a repetition of the mistake made by the French Blanquist Communards, who, in 1874, "repudiated" all compromises and all intermediate stages. Second, it is beyond doubt that, in this question too, as always, the task consists in learning to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict.
This, however, should be discussed, not in connection with British communism alone, but in connection with the general conclusions concerning the development of communism in all capitalist countries. We shall now proceed to deal with this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[35] The British Socialist Party was founded in 1911, in Manchester, as a result of a merger of the Social-Democratic Party and other socialist groups. The B.S.P. conducted agitation in the spirit of Marxism, it was "not opportunist and was really independent of the Liberals". However, its small membership and its poor links with the masses gave the B.S.P. a somewhat sectarian character. During the First World War, a bitter struggle developed within the British Socialist Party between the internationalists (William Gallacher, Albert Inkpin, John Maclean, Theodore Rothstein and others), and the social-chauvinists, headed by Hyndman. Within the internationalist trend were inconsistent elements that took a Centrist stand on a number of issues. In February 1916, a group of B.S.P. Leaders founded the newspaper The Call, which played an important role in uniting the internationalists. The B.S.P.’s annual conference, held in Salford in April 1916, condemned the social-chauvinist stand of Hyndman and his supporters who after the conference, left the party.
The British Socialist Party welcomed the Great October Socialist Revolution, its members playing an important part in the "Hands Off Russia" movement. In 1919, the overwhelming majority of its organisations (98 against 4) declared for affiliation to the Communist International. The British Socialist Party, together with the Communist Unity Group formed the core of the Communist Party of Great Britain. At the First (Unity) Congress, held in 1920. the vast majority of B.S.P. local organisations entered the Communist Party.
[36] The Socialist Labour Party was organised in 1903 by a group of the Left-wing Social-Democrats who had broken away from the Social-Democratic Federation. The South Wales Socialist Society was a small group consisting mostly of Welsh coal miners. The Workers’ Socialist Federation was a small organisation which emerged from the Women’s Suffrage League and consisted mostly of women.
The Leftist organisations did not join the Communist Party of Great Britain when it was formed (its Inaugural Congress was held on July 31-August 1, 1920) since the Party’s programme contained a clause on the Party participation in parliamentary elections and on affiliation to the Labour Party. At the Communist Party’s Congress in January 1921, the South Wales Socialist Society and the Workers’ Socialist Federation, which had assumed the names of the Communist Workers’ Party and the Communist Party respectively, united with the Communist Party of Great Britain under the name of the United Communist Party of Great Britain. The leaders of the Socialist Labour Party refused to join.
[*7] I believe this party is opposed to affiliation to the Labour Party but not all its members are opposed to participation in Parliament.
[*8] The results of the November 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia, based on returns embracing over 36,000,000 voters, were as follows: the Bolsheviks obtained 25 per cent of the votes; the various parties of the landowners and the bourgeoisie obtained 13 per cent, and the petty-bourgeois-democratic parties, i.e., the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and a number of similar small groups obtained 62 per cent
Markin comment:
This article goes along with the propaganda points in the fight for our communist future mentioned in other posts.
*******
With this now-classic work, Lenin aimed to encapsulate the lessons the Bolshevik Party had learned from its involvement in three revolutions in 12 years—in a manner that European Communists could relate to, for it was to them he was speaking. He also further develops the theory of what the "dictatorship of the proletariat" means and stresses that the primary danger for the working-class movement in general is opportunism on the one hand, and anti-Marxist ultra-leftism on the other.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder was written in April, and the appendix was written on May 12, 1920. It came out on June 8-10 in Russian and in July was published in German, English and French. Lenin gave personal attention to the book’s type-setting and printing schedule so that it would be published before the opening of the Second Congress of the Communist International, each delegate receiving a copy. Between July and November 1920, the book was re-published in Leipzig, Paris and London, in the German, French and English languages respectively.
"Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder is published according to the first edition print, the proofs of which were read by Lenin himself.
**********
"Left-Wing" Communism in Great Britian
There is no Communist Party in Great Britain as yet, but there is a fresh, broad, powerful and rapidly growing communist movement among the workers, which justifies the best hopes. There are several political parties and organisations (the British Socialist Party [35], the Socialist Labour Party, the South Wales Socialist Society, the Workers’ Socialist Federation [36]), which desire to form a Communist Party and are already negotiating among themselves to this end. In its issue of February 21, 1920, Vol. VI, No. 48, The Workers’ Dreadnought, weekly organ of the last of the organisations mentioned, carried an article by the editor, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, entitled "Towards a Communist Party". The article outlines the progress of the negotiations between the four organisations mentioned, for the formation of a united Communist Party, on the basis of affiliation to the Third International, the recognition of the Soviet system instead of parliamentarianism, and the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It appears that one of the greatest obstacles to the immediate formation of a united Communist Party is presented by the disagreement on the questions of participation in Parliament and on whether the new Communist Party should affiliate to the old, trade-unionist, opportunist and social-chauvinist Labour Party, which is mostly made up of trade unions. The Workers’ Socialist Federation and the Socialist Labour Party *7 are opposed to taking part in parliamentary elections and in Parliament, and they are opposed to affiliation to the Labour Party; in this they disagree with all or with most of the members of the British Socialist Party, which they regard as the "Right wing of the Communist parties" in Great Britain. (Page 5, Sylvia Pankhurst’s article.)
Thus, the main division is the same as in Germany, notwithstanding the enormous difference in the forms in which the disagreements manifest themselves (in Germany the form is far closer to the "Russian" than it is in Great Britain), and in a number of other things. Let us examine the arguments of the "Lefts".
On the question of participation in Parliament, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst refers to an article in the same issue, by Comrade Gallacher, who writes in the name of the Scottish Workers’ Council in Glasgow.
"The above council," he writes, "is definitely anti-parliamentarian, and has behind it the Left wing of the various political bodies. We represent the revolutionary movement in Scotland, striving continually to build up a revolutionary organisation within the industries [in various branches of production], and a Communist Party, based on social committees, throughout the country. For a considerable time we have been sparring with the official parliamentarians. We have not considered it necessary to declare open warfare on them, and they are afraid to open an attack on us.
"But this state of affairs cannot long continue. We are winning all along the line.
"The rank and file of the I.L.P. in Scotland is becoming more and more disgusted with the thought of Parliament, and the Soviets [the Russian word transliterated into English is used] or Workers’ Councils are being supported by almost every branch. This is very serious, of course, for the gentlemen who look to politics for a profession, and they are using any and every means to persuade their members to come back into the parliamentary fold. Revolutionary comrades must not [all italics are the author’s] give any support to this gang. Our fight here is going to be a difficult one. One of the worst features of it will be the treachery of those whose personal ambition is a more impelling force than their regard for the revolution. Any support given to parliamentarism is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary. The official I.L.P. is more and more coming under the control of middle-class Liberals, who ... have found their ’spiritual home’ in the camp of Messrs. MacDonald, Snowden and Co. The official I.L.P. is bitterly hostile to the Third International, the rank and file is for it. Any support to the parliamentary opportunists is simply playing into the hands of the former. The B.S.P. doesn’t count at all here.... What is wanted here is a sound revolutionary industrial organisation, and a Communist Party working along clear, well-defined, scientific lines. If our comrades can assist us in building these, we will take their help gladly; if they cannot, for God’s sake let them keep out altogether, lest they betray the revolution by lending their support to the reactionaries, who are so eagerly clamouring for parliamentary ’honours’ (?) [the query mark is the author’s] and who are so anxious to prove that they can rule as effectively as the ’boss’ class politicians themselves."
In my opinion, this letter to the editor expresses excellently the temper and point of view of the young Communists, or of rank-and-file workers who are only just beginning to accept communism. This temper is highly gratifying and valuable; we must learn to appreciate and support it for, in its absence, it would be hopeless to expect the victory of the proletarian revolution in Great Britain, or in any other country for that matter. People who can give expression to this temper of the masses, and are able to evoke such a temper (which is very often dormant, unconscious and latent) among the masses, should be appreciated and given every assistance. At the same time, we must tell them openly and frankly that a state of mind is by itself insufficient for leadership of the masses in a great revolutionary struggle, and that the cause of the revolution may well be harmed by certain errors that people who are most devoted to the cause of the revolution are about to commit, or are committing. Comrade Gallacher’s letter undoubtedly reveals the rudiments of all the mistakes that are being made by the German "Left" Communists and were made by the Russian "Left" Bolsheviks in 1908 and 1918.
The writer of the letter is full of a noble and working-class hatred for the bourgeois "class politicians" (a hatred understood and shared, however, not only by proletarians but by all working people, by all Kleinen Leuten to use the German expression). In a representative of the oppressed and exploited masses, this hatred is truly the "beginning of all wisdom", the basis of any socialist and communist movement and of its success. The writer, however, has apparently lost sight of the fact that politics is a science and an art that does not fall from the skies or come gratis, and that, if it wants to overcome the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must train its own proletarian "class politicians", of a kind in no way inferior to bourgeois politicians.
The writer of the letter fully realises that only workers’ Soviets, not parliament, can be the instrument enabling the proletariat to achieve its aims; those who have failed to understand this are, of course, out-and-out reactionaries, even if they are most highly educated people, most experienced politicians, most sincere socialists, most erudite Marxists, and most honest citizens and fathers of families. But the writer of the letter does not even ask—it does not occur to him to ask—whether it is possible to bring about the Soviets’ victory over parliament without getting pro-Soviet politicians into parliament, without disintegrating parliamentarianism from within, without working within parliament for the success of the Soviets in their forthcoming task of dispersing parliament. Yet the writer of the letter expresses the absolutely correct idea that the Communist Party in Great Britain must act on scientific principles. Science demands, first, that the experience of other countries be taken into account especially if these other countries, which are also capitalist, are undergoing, or have recently undergone, a very similar experience; second, it demands that account be taken of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country, and also that policy should not be determined only by the desires and views, by the degree of class-consciousness and the militancy of one group or party alone.
It is true that the Hendersons, the Clyneses, the MacDonalds and the Snowdens are hopelessly reactionary. It is equally true that they want to assume power (though they would prefer a coalition with the bourgeoisie), that they want to "rule" along the old bourgeois lines, and that when they are in power they will certainly behave like the Scheidemanns and Noskes. All that is true. But it does not at all follow that to support them means treachery to the revolution; what does follow is that, in the interests of the revolution, working-class revolutionaries should give these gentlemen a certain amount of parliamentary support. To explain this idea, I shall take two contemporary British political documents: (1) the speech delivered by Prime Minister Lloyd George on March 18, 1920 (as reported in The Manchester Guardian of March 19, 1920), and (2) the arguments of a "Left" Communist, Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, in the article mentioned above.
In his speech Lloyd George entered into a polemic with Asquith (who had been especially invited to this meeting but declined to attend) and with those Liberals who want, not a coalition with the Conservatives, but closer relations with the Labour Party. (In the above-quoted letter, Comrade Gallacher also points to the fact that Liberals are joining the Independent Labour Party.) Lloyd George argued that a coalition—and a close coalition at that—between the Liberals and the Conservatives was essential, otherwise there might be a victory for the Labour Party, which Lloyd George prefers to call "Socialist" and which is working for the "common ownership" of the means of production. "It is ... known as communism in France," the leader of the British bourgeoisie said, putting it popularly for his audience, Liberal M.P.s who probably never knew it before. In Germany it was called socialism, and in Russia it is called Bolshevism, he went on to say. To Liberals this is unacceptable on principle, Lloyd George explained, because they stand in principle for private property. "Civilisation is in jeopardy," the speaker declared, and consequently Liberals and Conservatives must unite....
"...If you go to the agricultural areas," said Lloyd George, "I agree you have the old party divisions as strong as ever. They are removed from the danger. It does not walk their lanes. But when they see it they will be as strong as some of these industrial constituencies are now. Four-fifths of this country is industrial and commercial; hardly one-fifth is agricultural. It is one of the things I have constantly in my mind when I think of the dangers of the future here. In France the population is agricultural, and you have a solid body of opinion which does not move very rapidly, and which is not very easily excited by revolutionary movements. That is not the case here. This country is more top-heavy than any country in the world, and if it begins to rock, the crash here, for that reason, will be greater than in any land."
From this the reader will see that Mr. Lloyd George is not only a very intelligent man, but one who has also learned a great deal from the Marxists. We too have something to learn from Lloyd George.
Of definite interest is the following episode, which occurred in the course of the discussion after Lloyd George’s speech:
"Mr. Wallace, M.P.: I should like to ask what the Prime Minister considers the effect might be in the industrial constituencies upon the industrial workers, so many of whom are Liberals at the present time and from whom we get so much support. Would not a possible result be to cause an immediate overwhelming accession of strength to the Labour Party from men who at present are our cordial supporters?
"The Prime Minister: I take a totally different view. The fact that Liberals are fighting among themselves undoubtedly drives a very considerable number of Liberals in despair to the Labour Party, where you get a considerable body of Liberals, very able men, whose business it is to discredit the Government. The result is undoubtedly to bring a good accession of public sentiment to the Labour Party. It does not go to the Liberals who are outside, it goes to the Labour Party, the by-elections show that."
It may be said, in passing, that this argument shows in particular how muddled even the most intelligent members of the bourgeoisie have become and how they cannot help committing irreparable blunders. That, in fact, is what will bring about the downfall of the bourgeoisie. Our people, however’ may commit blunders (provided, of course, that they are not too serious and are rectified in time) and yet in the long run, will prove the victors.
The second political document is the following argument advanced by Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst, a "Left" Communist:
"... Comrade Inkpin [the General Secretary of the British Socialist Party] refers to the Labour Party as ’the main body of the working-class movement’. Another comrade of the British Socialist Party, at the Third International, just held, put the British Socialist Party position more strongly. He said: ’We regard the Labour Party as the organised working class.’
"We do not take this view of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is very large numerically though its membership is to a great extent quiescent and apathetic, consisting of men and women who have joined the trade unions because their workmates are trade unionists, and to share the friendly benefits.
"But we recognise that the great size of the Labour Party is also due to the fact that it is the creation of a school of thought beyond which the majority of the British working class has not yet emerged, though great changes are at work in the mind of the people which will presently alter this state of affairs....
"The British Labour Party, like the social-patriotic organisations of other countries, will, in the natural development of society, inevitably come into power. It is for the Communists to build up the forces that will overthrow the social patriots, and in this country we must not delay or falter in that work.
"We must not dissipate our energy in adding to the strength of the Labour Party; its rise to power is inevitable. We must concentrate on making a communist movement that will vanquish it. The Labour Party will soon be forming a government, the revolutionary opposition must make ready to attack it" [[RjC: could be incomplete here; check]]
Thus the liberal bourgeoisie are abandoning the historical system of "two parties" (of exploiters), which has been hallowed by centuries of experience and has been extremely advantageous to the exploiters, and consider it necessary for these two parties to join forces against the Labour Party. A number of Liberals are deserting to the Labour Party like rats from a sinking ship. The Left Communists believe that the transfer of power to the Labour Party is inevitable and admit that it now has the backing of most workers. From this they draw the strange conclusion which Comrade Sylvia Pankhurst formulates as follows:
"The Communist Party must not compromise.... The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate, its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution."
On the contrary, the fact that most British workers still follow the lead of the British Kerenskys or Scheidemanns and have not yet had experience of a government composed of these people—an experience which was necessary in Russia and Germany so as to secure the mass transition of the workers to communism—undoubtedly indicates that the British Communists should participate in parliamentary action, that they should, from within parliament, help the masses of the workers see the results of a Henderson and Snowden government in practice, and that they should help the Hendersons and Snowdens defeat the united forces of Lloyd George and Churchill. To act otherwise would mean hampering the cause of the revolution, since revolution is impossible without a change in the views of the majority of the working class, a change brought about by the political experience of the masses, never by propaganda alone. "To lead the way without compromises, without turning"—this slogan is obviously wrong if it comes from a patently impotent minority of the workers who know (or at all events should know) that given a Henderson and Snowden victory over Lloyd George and Churchill, the majority will soon become disappointed in their leaders and will begin to support communism (or at all events will adopt an attitude of neutrality, and, in the main, of sympathetic neutrality, towards the Communists). It is as though 10,000 soldiers were to hurl themselves into battle against an enemy force of 50,000, when it would be proper to "halt", "take evasive action", or even effect a "compromise" so as to gain time until the arrival of the 100,000 reinforcements that are on their way but cannot go into action immediately. That is intellectualist childishness, not the serious tactics of a revolutionary class.
The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way, and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the "lower classes" do not want to live in the old way and the "upper classes" cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph. This truth can be expressed in other words: revolution is impossible without a nation-wide crisis (affecting both the exploited and the exploiters). It follows that, for a revolution to take place, it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers (or at least a majority of the class-conscious, thinking, and politically active workers) should fully realise that revolution is necessary, and that they should be prepared to die for it; second, that the ruling classes should be going through a governmental crisis, which draws even the most backward masses into politics (symptomatic of any genuine revolution is a rapid, tenfold and even hundredfold increase in the size of the working and oppressed masses—hitherto apathetic—who are capable of waging the political struggle), weakens the government, and makes it possible for the revolutionaries to rapidly overthrow it.
Incidentally, as can also be seen from Lloyd George’s speech, both conditions for a successful proletarian revolution are clearly maturing in Great Britain. The errors of the Left Communists are particularly dangerous at present, because certain revolutionaries are not displaying a sufficiently thoughtful, sufficiently attentive, sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently shrewd attitude toward each of these conditions. If we are the party of the revolutionary class, and not merely a revolutionary group, and if we want the masses to follow us (and unless we achieve that, we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags), we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory!); second, we must help the majority of the working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right, i.e., that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is inevitable; third, we must bring nearer the moment when, on the basis of the disappointment of most of the workers in the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once; because if the most astute and solid Lloyd George, that big, not petty, bourgeois, is displaying consternation and is more and more weakening himself (and the bourgeoisie as a whole) by his "friction" with Churchill today and with Asquith tomorrow, how much greater will be the consternation of a Henderson government!
I will put it more concretely. In my opinion, the British Communists should unite their four parties and groups (all very weak, and some of them very, very weak) into a single Communist Party on the basis of the principles of the Third International and of obligatory participation in parliament. The Communist Party should propose the following "compromise" election agreement to the Hendersons and Snowdens: let us jointly fight against the alliance between Lloyd George and the Conservatives; let us share parliamentary seats in proportion to the number of workers’ votes polled for the Labour Party and for the Communist Party (not in elections, but in a special ballot), and let us retain complete freedom of agitation, propaganda and political activity. Of course, without this latter condition, we cannot agree to a bloc, for that would be treachery; the British Communists must demand and get complete freedom to expose the Hendersons and the Snowdens in the same way as (for fifteen years—1903-17) the Russian Bolsheviks demanded and got it in respect of the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens, i.e., the Mensheviks.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens accept a bloc on these terms, we shall be the gainers, because the number of parliamentary seats is of no importance to us; we are not out for seats. We shall yield on this point (whilst the Hendersons and especially their new friends—or new masters —the Liberals who have joined the Independent Labour Party are most eager to get seats). We shall be the gainers, because we shall carry our agitation among the masses at a time when Lloyd George himself has "incensed" them, and we shall not only be helping the Labour Party to establish its government sooner, but shall also be helping the masses sooner to understand the communist propaganda that we shall carry on against the Hendersons, without any reticence or omission.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject a bloc with us on these terms, we shall gain still more, for we shall at once have shown the masses (note that, even in the purely Menshevik and completely opportunist Independent Labour Party, the rank and file are in favour of Soviets) that the Hendersons prefer their close relations with the capitalists to the unity of all the workers. We shall immediately gain in the eyes- of the masses, who, particularly after the brilliant, highly correct and highly useful (to communism) explanations given by Lloyd George, will be sympathetic to the idea of uniting all the workers against the Lloyd George-Conservative alliance. We shall gain immediately, because we shall have demonstrated to the masses that the Hendersons and the Snowdens are afraid to beat Lloyd George, afraid to assume power alone, and are striving to secure the secret support of Lloyd George, who is openly extending a hand to the Conservatives, against the Labour Party. It should be noted that in Russia, after the revolution of February 27, 1917 (old style), the Bolsheviks’ propaganda against the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries (i.e., the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens) derived benefit precisely from a circumstance of this kind. We said to the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries: assume full power without the bourgeoisie, because you have a majority in the Soviets (at the First All-Russia Congress of Soviets, in June 1917, the Bolsheviks had only 13 per cent of the votes). But the Russian Hendersons and Snowdens were afraid to assume power without the bourgeoisie, and when the bourgeoisie held up the elections to the Constituent Assembly, knowing full well that the elections would give a majority to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks *8 (who formed a close political bloc and in fact represented only petty-bourgeois democracy), the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were unable energetically and consistently to oppose these delays.
If the Hendersons and the Snowdens reject a bloc with the Communists, the latter will immediately gain by winning the sympathy of the masses and discrediting the Hendersons and Snowdens, if, as a result, we do lose a few parliamentary seats, it is a matter of no significance to us. We would put up our candidates in a very few but absolutely safe constituencies, namely, constituencies where our candidatures would not give any seats to the Liberals at the expense of the Labour candidates. We would take part in the election campaign, distribute leaflets agitating for communism, and, in all constituencies where we have no candidates, we would urge the electors to vote for the Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidate. Comrades Sylvia Pankhurst and Gallacher are mistaken in thinking that this is a betrayal of communism, or a renunciation of the struggle against the social-traitors. On the contrary, the cause of communist revolution would undoubtedly gain thereby.
At present, British Communists very often find it hard even to approach the masses, and even to get a hearing from them. If I come out as a Communist and call upon them to vote for Henderson and against Lloyd George, they will certainly give me a hearing. And I shall be able to explain in a popular manner, not only why the Soviets are better than a parliament and why the dictatorship of the proletariat is better than the dictatorship of Churchill (disguised with the signboard of bourgeois "democracy"), but also that, with my vote, I want to support Henderson in the same way as the rope supports a hanged man—that the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side, and will hasten the political death of the Hendersons and the Snowdens just as was the case with their kindred spirits in Russia and Germany.
If the objection is raised that these tactics are too "subtle" or too complex for the masses to understand, that these tactics will split and scatter our forces, will prevent us from concentrating them on Soviet revolution, etc., I will reply to the "Left objectors: don’t ascribe your doctrinairism to the masses! The masses in Russia are no doubt no better educated than the masses in Britain; if anything, they are less so. Yet the masses understood the Bolsheviks, and the fact that, in September 1917, on the eve of the Soviet revolution, the Bolsheviks put up their candidates for a bourgeois parliament (the Constituent Assembly) and on the day after the Soviet revolution, in November 1917, took part in the elections to this Constituent Assembly, which they got rid of on January 5, 1918—this did not hamper the Bolsheviks, but, on the contrary, helped them.
I cannot deal here with the second point of disagreement among the British Communists—the question of affiliation or non-affiliation to the Labour Party. I have too little material at my disposal on this question, which is highly complex because of the unique character of the British Labour Party, whose very structure is so unlike that of the political parties usual in the European continent. It is beyond doubt, however, first, that in this question, too, those who try to deduce the tactics of the revolutionary proletariat from principles such as: "The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct road to the communist revolution"—will inevitably fall into error. Such principles are merely a repetition of the mistake made by the French Blanquist Communards, who, in 1874, "repudiated" all compromises and all intermediate stages. Second, it is beyond doubt that, in this question too, as always, the task consists in learning to apply the general and basic principles of communism to the specific relations between classes and parties, to the specific features in the objective development towards communism, which are different in each country and which we must be able to discover, study, and predict.
This, however, should be discussed, not in connection with British communism alone, but in connection with the general conclusions concerning the development of communism in all capitalist countries. We shall now proceed to deal with this subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[35] The British Socialist Party was founded in 1911, in Manchester, as a result of a merger of the Social-Democratic Party and other socialist groups. The B.S.P. conducted agitation in the spirit of Marxism, it was "not opportunist and was really independent of the Liberals". However, its small membership and its poor links with the masses gave the B.S.P. a somewhat sectarian character. During the First World War, a bitter struggle developed within the British Socialist Party between the internationalists (William Gallacher, Albert Inkpin, John Maclean, Theodore Rothstein and others), and the social-chauvinists, headed by Hyndman. Within the internationalist trend were inconsistent elements that took a Centrist stand on a number of issues. In February 1916, a group of B.S.P. Leaders founded the newspaper The Call, which played an important role in uniting the internationalists. The B.S.P.’s annual conference, held in Salford in April 1916, condemned the social-chauvinist stand of Hyndman and his supporters who after the conference, left the party.
The British Socialist Party welcomed the Great October Socialist Revolution, its members playing an important part in the "Hands Off Russia" movement. In 1919, the overwhelming majority of its organisations (98 against 4) declared for affiliation to the Communist International. The British Socialist Party, together with the Communist Unity Group formed the core of the Communist Party of Great Britain. At the First (Unity) Congress, held in 1920. the vast majority of B.S.P. local organisations entered the Communist Party.
[36] The Socialist Labour Party was organised in 1903 by a group of the Left-wing Social-Democrats who had broken away from the Social-Democratic Federation. The South Wales Socialist Society was a small group consisting mostly of Welsh coal miners. The Workers’ Socialist Federation was a small organisation which emerged from the Women’s Suffrage League and consisted mostly of women.
The Leftist organisations did not join the Communist Party of Great Britain when it was formed (its Inaugural Congress was held on July 31-August 1, 1920) since the Party’s programme contained a clause on the Party participation in parliamentary elections and on affiliation to the Labour Party. At the Communist Party’s Congress in January 1921, the South Wales Socialist Society and the Workers’ Socialist Federation, which had assumed the names of the Communist Workers’ Party and the Communist Party respectively, united with the Communist Party of Great Britain under the name of the United Communist Party of Great Britain. The leaders of the Socialist Labour Party refused to join.
[*7] I believe this party is opposed to affiliation to the Labour Party but not all its members are opposed to participation in Parliament.
[*8] The results of the November 1917 elections to the Constituent Assembly in Russia, based on returns embracing over 36,000,000 voters, were as follows: the Bolsheviks obtained 25 per cent of the votes; the various parties of the landowners and the bourgeoisie obtained 13 per cent, and the petty-bourgeois-democratic parties, i.e., the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and a number of similar small groups obtained 62 per cent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)