The International Significance of Bolshevism

M. H. C.
Communist 1932

THE letter ·of comrade Stalin to the magazine Proletorskaya Revoluzia on some questions relating to the history of Bolshe­vism, not only exposes the falsifiers of history, the Slutskys, Volo­ sevitches, Mironovs, ete., but is of world historical significance. It emphasizes the necessity of Bolshevik vigilance on the theoretical front. It mobilizes the Communist International for a more de­termined fight against Trotskyism, against Luxemburgism, against right opportunism as well as against all renegades from Marxism­Leninism. The letter of comrade Stalin further exposes the rotten liberalism and mistakes on the part of some Bolshevik editors and historians, who discuss axioms of Bolshevism that are not debatable. The international character of comrade Stalin's letter makes it necessary for the C. P. U. S. A. to utilize it for the further Bolshe­vization of our Party. 

Is it accidental that the enemies of Bolshevism are trying to smuggle in an alien class ideology and utilize the theoretical front in the fight against the Party of Lenin against the Comintem and against the Soviet Union? Of course not. 

The Soviet Union is now entering the fourth year of the Five­ year Plan, and it is indisputable that the Five-Year Plan will be completed in four years. The foundation of Socialism is being completed. Today 62 per cent of all the individual peasant hold­ings are organized into collective farms. This is talcing place with a socialist , offensive on all fronts. But classes in the Soviet Union are not yet completely liquidated, the class struggle still con­tinues, although the question of "who whom" within the Soviet Union has already been decided in favor of Socialism. The dying capitalist elements, however, are still offering resistance. The class enemy finds new forms of expression and we see new manifesta­tions of opportunism.

In the last few months right opportunism in practice raised its head in the Grain Trust and Sugar Trust. During the grain gath­ering campaign, attempts were made by the opportunists to in jure the proletarian state, to fool the Party and to interfere with the general government plan. With all their strength the Party and the masses smashed these manifestations of kulak ideology as ex- pressed by the opportunists. At the same time the Party had to strike at some "left" tendencies, which wanted only inflated per­centage figures but neglected the organiza.tion and §trengthening of the collective farms. Some even wanted to immediately trans­form the collective farms into Soviet farms. It is clear that such tendencies play into, the hand of the class enemy, the kulaks. The C. P. S. U. carries on a struggle on two fronts, against any devi-­ations f rom the line of the Bolshevik Central Committee. This struggle is carried on in practical work as well as on the theoretical f ront the two are not and cannot be separated. 

The right opportunists and the Trotskyists have been smashed and exposed before the great masses. It is therefore difficult for them to come out openly under their own banner. Comrade Kagano­vich said: "that is why the Trotskyists in particular, fulfill the 'social task' of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, at present coming out against the Party in a masked form." The Trotskyists are at­tempting -to creep in through the "gates of the history of our Party." 

On the international field the Trotskyists are proving, as com­rade Stalin said, that they are "the vanguard of the counter-revo­ lutioİıary bourgeoisie." The capitalist world is confronted with the gravest crisis in history. Only the Soviet U nion is going f or­ward in the construction of Socialism, improving the conditions of the pt"oletariat and toiling masses. In the Soviet U nion unem­ployment has been liquidated. The proletariat in the capitalist coun­tries begin to see this contrast more clearly every day. But what do the Trotskyists say? More concretely, the American Trotskyites.

"No country that moves actively within the orbit of world economy is immune from the convulsions of the crisis" and "the Soviet Union too which has not been and cannot be liberated from the pressure of world economy." (Thesis, Militant, July 25, 1931.)

Thus we see the American Trotskyites also doing their share to fulfill the "social task" of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. The XI Plenum of the E. C. C. I. stated that the greatest con­tradiction in the world today is:

" ... the antagonism between the system that is build_ing up social­ism and the system of decaying capitalism. The antagonisms be­tween the capitalist and Socialist systems have never developed with such force, and the advantages of the socialist system over the capitalist system have never been. revealed so strikingly as they are now." (Thesis XI Plenum E. C. C. I.)

The Trotskyites, _ however, say: "Europe versus America, the central problem of the capitalist world politics." (Thesis, Militant, July 25, 1931.) Why do the Trotskyites place these questions as they do? Because, as the vanguard of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie they must create the theoretical premise for the attack against the Soviet Union, they must disarm the proletariat of the capitalist countries from coming to the defense of their proletarian fatherland, they must minimize the danger of intervention against the Soviet Union, help to lay a barrage for the attack of the im­perialist bourgeoisie against the U. S. S. R. 

Trotsky is against the Bolshevik policy of a struggle on two fronts. This is connected with his counter-revolutionary theory of Thermidorism and Bonapartism. "The essence of Robespierre pol­icy consisted of an ever greater accentuation of the struggle on two fronts," he writes. The Trotskyites oppose a systematic strug­gle on two fronts, claiming that a struggle on two fronts "is an innate feature of a petty bourgeois policy." Why is Trotsky in­terested in showing "a similarity with Robespierre"? Because he accuses the dictatorship of the proletariat of being in a stage of centrism, and the Party leadership is pursuing a centrist petty bour­geois policy. He, Trotsky, is attempting in his slanderous way, to pose as the real revolutionist, and that Trotskyism is a wing of the Communist movement, instead of being the vanguard of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Centrism was a social phenome­non in a Party not homogeneous, not monolithic. This was the case in the parties of the Second International, where the centrist leadership tried to reconcile the interests of two classes-the pro­letariat ana the petty bourgeoisie. There centrism had a social base. The Communist Party, however, is the class Party of the proletariat which in struggle has separated itself from opportunism. The struggle of the Communist Party on two f ronts against all deviations from Marxism-Leninism is against all petty bourgeois influences, as expressed in the right and "left" deviations. The semi-Trotskyites open the gates for the enemy. Slutsky's slander that Bolshevism did not sufficiently struggle against opportunism and centrism in the Second International is in line with the present counter-revolutionary theory of Trotskyism. 

It is clear therefore that we cannot consider Trotskyism as a current, not even a wrong current, within the movement of the working class. Trotskyism cannot be looked upon as a fraction of Communism-it is the vanguard of the counter-revolutionary bour­geoisie. In its attitude and relation to the October Revoliıtion, the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet Union, Trotskyism shows on what side of the barricades it stands. For the international proletariat, the October Revolution is the beginning of the world revolution. Support of the U. S. S. R. means the construction of Socialism. Only the Soviet Union headed by the Bolshevik party is the leader of the world revolution. Against this we see a united front, from the Trotskyites to the extreme reactionaries. 

II

Slutsky's· theories, as well as the theories of the other smugglers and falsifiers of the history of Bolshevism, leads to a whole line of  struggle against Leninism. No liberalism must be shown to these slanderers of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. Who does not know that Bolshevism spread and grew strong in a struggle against the Populists, the Social-Revolutionaries, Legal Marxists, Economists, Mensheviks, Liquidators, Centrists, against the "lef t" within the ranks of the Bolsheviks--Recallists, Vanguardists, against concili­ators,. right deviationists and counter-revolutionary Trotskyism. Yet instead of an open fight against the ideas· of the Slutskys some Bol­sheviks began a "scientific" discussion whether Lenin was a Bol­shevik or not, and whether Trotsky "re-armed" Bolshevism in 1917. Comrade Stalin unmasked these smugglers, and some "lib­eral" Bolsheviks who supplied ammunition to these enemies of the Party.

The theory of comrade Mintz counterposing "objectivity" to "political advisability" in an attempt to shield some errors corıtained in the collective . volumes under the editorship of comrade Yaro­slavsky, İn which he also participated, is a non-Marxist, non-Leni­nist conception. It distorts the scientific nature of history. It for­gets that historical materialism is the only objective theory of social development. This conception of Mintz helps the Trotskyist smugglers and villifiers of Bolshevism, who utilized this "political advisability" to smuggle in Trotskyist ideas and distort the histotry of the Party. It is an attell!pt to separate theory from practice.

The Trotskyist theories of Slutsky attempt to show that Lenin­ism is a "national expression," an expression of Russian backward­ness, etc. Who does not recall the cry of the Second International and the Mensheviks to "westernize" the Russian labor movement. The Americ:ın Trotskyites also speak of "national socialism" when referring to the Soviet Union. When the October revolution was victorious the opportunists throughout the world cried out against it. Hillquit echoed the words of Kautsky:

"According to all accepted Marxian tests, Russia was entirely unprepared for a Socialist revolution." (Hillquit, From Marx to Lenin, page 19.)

Further:

"So long as the Russian Revolution was viewed as an integral part of a general world-wide rising of the working class, it was poısible to bring it, within the accepted Marxian concept, but as an isolated event it calls for a new and different theoretical foun­dation.» (From Marx to Lenin, Hülquit, pag._ 119). 

Hillquit also tried to set limits upon the October revolution, to put national limits upon it, to make Bolshevism an "isolated event," ete. The proletariat of the imperialist countries as well as the proletariat and oppressed toiling masses of the semi-eolonial and eolonial eoun­tries know differently. They feel the influence and power of the Bolshevik revolution. More than that, they view the October Bol­shevik revolution not only as a "part: of a general world-wide ris­ing," but as the leader in this world October. 

Hillquit was not alone. Oneal, the red-baiter, foamed at the mouth and cried:

"Russian economic and bureaucratic history weighs like a moun­tain upon the minds of Communists. They cannot shake it off . They think in terms of this history, they see the rest of the world through it, .and everything else assumes the character, dimensions, coloring and importance of an experience that is Russian." ( O'Neal, American Communi.sm, page 229-230.)

Other voices have joined the chorus of the Hillquits, Oneals, Thomases, Mustes, etc. The falsettos of the renegades Cannon and Lovestone is in harmony with the. Hillquits and the bourgeoisie, in spite of their masks. 

The international signifieance of Leninism, the experiences of the vietorious proletarian revolution is of vital importanee for the Com­munist Parties in all the capitalist eountries. Comrade Stalin placed this question quite clearly, when he wrote: 

"Leninism is tke Marxism of the epoch of imperialism and of· the proletarian revolution. To the more precise, Leninism is the theory and tactic of the proletarian revolution in general., and the theory and tactick of. the dictatorship of the proletariat in particu­lar." (Stalin, Problems of Leninism, page 13). 

"Leninism is an international pkenomena. it is rooted in inter­nationalism and is not solely Russian." (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, page 79.)

This is an answer to the slanderers of Bolshevism, to those who want to throw doubt upon the internationalism of the Bolsheviks. Let us take some of the major problems that were raised by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Can they be eonsidered only problems of the Russian Revolution? What problems did the Bolsheviks bring to the forefront? The question of the Party, the attitude of Marxists to the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the alliance between the proletariat and peasantry; the hegemony of the proletariat, of the struggle inside and outside parliament, the general stıike, of the bourgeois-demoeratie revolution growing into the socialist revolu­tion, the dietatorship of the proletariat, imperialism, liberation move­ment in the eolonies, self-determination of nations, ete. These are not merely _Russian problems but international problems. 

Where does world Bolshevism eome from and who prepared the hasis for the Communist International? This is linked up with the question as to when the Bolsheviks stepped on the international arena. Here we must not use the methods of the "arehive rats" when they point to· an amendment that Lenin made to a resolution of Bebel at some international eongress, ete., and use this as a date, or of slanderers who want to minimize Lenin's struggle against opportunism before the war, claiming they eannot find enough doeuments, ete. As eomrade Stalin said in answer to these: we don't judge the aetions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks by documents--­ but by deeds. As to doeuments, if one does not want to falsify, there are plenty to prove the struggle of the Bolsheviks. against opportunism in the Seeond International. Already in 1901-02, in the magazine Dawn, Lenin eharaeterized Kautsky's position on Bernstein and Millerand as a "rubber" position, a wavering posi­tion, ete. 

Long before the war the Bolsheviks raise fundamental problem, whieh are today the eornerstones, the roots of the Communist In­ternational. This, together with uneompromising struggle against opportunism and eentrism in Russia and in the Seeond Interna­tional, won for the Bolsheviks the role of leader of the interna­tional proletariat. 

Radek onee raised the question that the left radieals under the leadership of Luxemburg prepared the hasis for the Communist International, that they were the leaders of the international move­ment before the war. Sueh a eoneeption distorts the role of the Bolsheviks on the international arena. Radek's mistaken position was the following. Germany was faeed with.a proletarian revolu­tion, while Russia, aeeording to him, had before it the task of a bourgeois-democratie revolution. Only after the war did eondi­tions ehange aiıd also the eharaeter of the revolution in Russia; this, of eourse, ehanged the role of the Bolsheviks in the Interna­tional. Where does sueh eoneeption lead to? It leads to a minimİ·· zation of the international revolutionary eharaeter of Bolshevism. Like Trotsky, it attempts to put narrow national limits on Bolshevism. 

Mironov, a semi-Trotskyist smuggler, who distorted the history of Bolshevism, also plaees the question in a similar manner. This ignoramus slanders Lenin, when he writes that prior to the war Lenin did not critieise Kautsky. What reasons or f aets does this "historian" give? Russia, he claims, was faced with a bourgeois­demoeratie revolution and Kautsky was also in favor of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. Thus this anti-Party "historian" wants to turn Lenin into a common bourgeois radical who had no disagree­ments with Kautsky on one of the most cardinal points of Leninism, to create the İmpression that Lenin did not place the problem of the growing over of the bourgeois democratic revolution into a so­cialist one, until 191 7, when Trotsky "re-armed" Bolshevism. 

It is against such "philistines and degenerates" that comrade Stalin's letter mobilizes the whole Comintern. It shows to what extent rotten liberalism had its influence even among certain people within the Party, in allowing such anti-Party writings to pose as "history" for a number· of years. In the collective work, the "History of the C.P .S. U .," under the editorship of comrade Yaros­lavsky, many vital questions of a principle and historical character are treated in a T rotskyite manner, and semi-Trotskyites utilized these pages to smuggle in their system. of anti-Bolshevik ideas. 

The 9falsifiers of the history of the C.P.S. U. want to create the impression that Lenin had two plans, that is, one in 1905, when the Bolsheviks were supposed to have thought only of a bourgeois demo­cratic revolution, and another plan in 1917-af ter Trotsky had "re-armed" Bolshevism. Üne so-called historian by the name of S. Pokrovsky, who is really a falsifier, writes in his book The Theory of the Proletarian Revolution the f ollowing:

"Lenin ( 1 9 O 5) in this sense agreed with the · M enskeviks, that only a revolution in the West would give the possibility to the Russian proletariat to capture power and establish its own socialist dictatorship, ... in 19 1 7 the question of perspectives of growing over was put differently by Lenin."

Thanks to rotten liberalism, and lack of Bolshevik vigilance such forgers have the insolence to attempt to change Lenin into a Menshe .. vik. How did Lenin place this problem? Not in 1917, but in 1905, he wrote:

"As far as lies within our power:ıı within the power of the class conscious and organized proletariat, we shall at once begin to move on from the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. We are for continuous revolution. We shall not be content with half measures. . . .
"Without lapsing into adventurism, without being untrue to our scientifıc conscience, without seeking for cheap popularity, we can say and we do say only one thing: with all our strength we shall help the entire peasantry to make a democratic revolution, that it may be easier for us, the Party of the proletariat, to pass on as speedily as possible to a new and higher· task, to the socialist revo­lution." (Lenin, Vol. VI, pp. 447-450.)

The question of the theory of the growing over of the bourgeois­democratic revolution into a socialist. revolution is very important at the present moment. It is of decisi ve significance f or many parties in the Comintern in their struggle for the proletarian revolution. The distortion of this theory is connected with denial of the socialist nature of the October revolution. Such cfistortions lead to the denial of the possibility of building Socialism in the Soviet U nion with the internal strength of the country. It denies the possibility of the proletariat leading the toiling masses. on the road to socialist reconstruction. Comrade Stalin already İn 1924 exposed the at­tempts to revise the theories of Leninism on this important question.

İt is, therefore, clear to any one acquainted with the facts of history that the Bolsheviks were the only consistent Marxists in the international labor movement. They were the only ones who could prepare the base for the Third Communist International. 'The left German social-democrats were not Bolshevılcs--they were always vacillating between Bolshevism and Menshevism.

Any attell)pt to place Luxemburgism on an equal footing with Bolshevism, will injure the Bolshevization of the various sections of the Comintern. The wrong theories of Luxemburg and the left radicals must not be covered up, but must be exposed and rooted out. Wherever remnants of Luxemburgism still have influence it is more difficult to struggle against social-fascism. The renegades, Brandler and Talheimer, attempt to compare Luxemburgism to Bolshevism, in f act they speak of Luxemburgism as "German Bol­shevism." The "left" German social-fascists Rosenfeld and Seydovitz carry on a struggle against Bolshevism under the mask of Luxemburgism and in this manner try to hold the social-democratic workers in the camp of the bourgeoisie and prevent them from going over to the communists.

- Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not always support the left radicals including Rosa Luxemburg, because of differences on some of the most basic questions. For example, Luxemburg's theory of accum­ulation leads to the harmful theory of the automatic collapse of capitalism. Even when the German left social-democrats under the influence of the Russian revolution of 1905 accepted the general strike as a decisive weapon in political struggle, they did not develop it to the logical conclusion: the armed uprising which flows from this, as pointed out by Lenin. Luxemburg also had a wrong theory about imperialism. She and her group did not understand the im­portance of the colonial liberation movement İn relation to the pro­letarian · revolution. Luxemburg and the other lef t radicals had a wrong conception of the national question and opposed the right of şelf-determination of nations. The failure to see_ the peasant question and allies for the proletariat is connected up with the mistaken theory of the permanent revolution, which she held; Luxemburg was a believer in the theory of spontaneity and · came out İn support of the Mensheviks as against Lenin on the question of a well or­ganized, centralized and disciplined Party. 

The left radicals under Luxemburg were a very unstable and vacillating opposition in the pre-war Second International. They were not organized, they feared a split with the centrists and other opportunists and made a fetish of "unity." Luxemburg while op­posing the imperialist war did not come out decisively against Kaut­sky. In his criticism of the Junius pamphlet, Lenin reviews the mistakes of Luxemburg on the question of imperialist war, etc. Even in later years Rosa Luxemburg had some wrong conceptions on problems of the October revolution in Russia on the constituent assembly, national question, free press, franchise, ete. It is true that before her murder by the social-democratic hangman she rec-. ognized some of her errors on the October revolution. Never­theless, the Mensheviks and other enemies of the Soviet Union utilized these for a struggle against Communism. 

Let us take another group of left radicals in the pre-war days, the Bulgarian Tesmaks or the Narrow Party as they were called. The Tesniaks were among the best of the lef ts that fought oppor­tunism-but in no way can they be considered Bolsheviks. They did not understand the dictatorship of the proletariat, the hegemony of the proletariat, the peasant question and the meaning of a well organized, disciplined Party. Although the Tesniaks were against the imperialist war, they had no conception of Lenin's slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war. The failure to understand the peasant question proved especially fatal to the Bulgarian Communist Party during the events in that country in 1923. 

It is obvious that only Lenin and the Bolsheviks could take the lead in the organization of the Comintern. Who does not re­member the vacillations of the lefts at Zimmerwald and Kienthal and even at the First Congress of the Comintern? W e must, there­fore,, emphasize · once more that Lenin, the Bolsheviks, always struggled against opportunism and centrism, in Russia and in the Second International, that Lenin, besides working out the basic theories of Bolshevism as an international movement, wrote a great deal on the labor movement of England, France, Germany, ete. 

The international proletariat knows that the October revolution was victorious under the leadership of the Leninist Bolshevik Party, that the Soviet Union is the leader in the world October. 

The Lovestoneites and the Trotskyites have put forth the slogan of the "Internationalization of the Comintern." What is the essence of this slogan? This is an attempt to minimize the interna­tional character of Leninism, of Bolshevism. It is an attempt to divorce the Comintern from the leading Party, its strongest nucleus, the C.P .S. U ., - and the leader of the international proletariat, com­rade Stalin. It is an attack against the Soviet U nion. 

We must expose the renegade Brandlerites and Lovestoneites who attempt to put claims as "inheritors" of Bolshevism. Brandler utilizes the name "Spartacus" to further his work in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Lovestone has the insolence to utilize the name "majority group" which, if translated into Russian, means Bolshe­vik. The revolutionary workers know these lickspittles of the bour­geoisie by their real names and no amount of masquerading will help them to hide their strike-breaking role. Must also wants a "new Party," a party "fre􀀱 from Moscow," a party that will be free from Bolshevism and hold the workers in the camp of the bourgeoisie or as he says:

"The Communist Party in the United States today suffers from a mechanical dictation from outside which severely handicaps in its dealing with the American situation. lts roots are not primarily in the American soil." (On Political Organization, A. J. Muste, Labor A ge, August, 19 3 1.)

This language is not as "theoretical" as the German "left" social­ fascists', but the essence of the betrayal of the working class to the bourgeoisie is very clear. The Lovestohes and Cannons in their fight against the Comintern, against Bolshevism and the Soviet Union, will cover this betrayal with a "theoretical" dress. They will use other demagogy, but in reality will not change the sub­stance. Muste even quotes Trotsky on the definition of a Party.

Let us listen to Muste further: 

"We want American labor to be realistic," or further: "We must start with the conditions which he faces here in Chicago, Pittsburgh, Seattfe, not the conditions somebody else faces in Lan­don, Berlin or Moscow. We mean that the American labor move­ment must take its orders from American worke'rs." And again. _ "Nobody else can do the job here, any more than we can do the job somewhere else."  

"We believe that labor must use the methods which suit the occasion, and not marry itself to a dream or a formula as to how it must gain its ends." (The C.P.L.A. by A. J. Muste, Lahor Age, December, 1931.)  

Lovestone's theory of "American exceptionalism" and by the way Trotsky's theory of "American placing Europe on rations," which is the same thing, agrees with Muste's conceptions of an exceptional Party which will work out.

"The problem of method in achieving social change in nations where political democracy has been achieved as contrasted with nations like Czarist Russia in an earlier period of political evolution." (A. J. Muste, Lahor Age, April, 1931).

V ery f amiliar talk! This is the international vocabulary of so­cial-fascism, of counter-revolutionary Trotskyism, of all the rene­gades who are fighting Bolshevism, who want to put national limits on Bolshevism. W e must not make the mistake of considering any "left" social-fascist party as a group between Leninism and op­portunism. Such a group is nothing but a social-fascist group and even more dangerous because of its "left" phraseology. There is only one Party that can lead the proletariat to victory and this is the Communist Party. Bolshevized and armed with the interna­tional theory of Leninism. 

Comrade Stalin's letter must be a means for the further Bolshe­vization of the C. P. U. S. A. W e must overcome this under­estimation of theory which is a characteristic of the American labor movement. W e must as much as possible struggle against such moods in our Party. W e must struggle against remnants of the I.W.W.'ism, DeLeonism, and Luxemburgism. Üne need but to recall our attitude on the national question up to a few years ago, to see the influence of Luxemburgism in our Party. We have a great advantage in that we have the great weapon of Marxism­L'eninism. Üur task must be to master this theory, taking this theory to the broad masses. Üne of the greatest tests which will prove whether we understand the dialectical conection between theory and practice is to examine how far we have put into life the decisions of the Comintern, the decisions of our Central Com­mittee.

W e must carry on an uncompromising struggle against all devia­tions from the line of Leninism. By turning our Party into a mass Party, rooted in the factoriest. we will have shown the power of Leninism as an international theory and movement, and shown that we are learning from the valuable and heroic history of the Bol­shevik C. P. S. U. 

Comrade Stalin's letter should mean for us more vigilance and a greater check-up in our press and literature to guard against the creeping in of an ideology alien to Bolshevism.