We agree that the retreat at the time of the Chemnitz Conference was unavoidable. It is not worth while now to argue about this. Apparently it was unavoidable in view of the situation then prevailing. But the attitude during the Saxony affair is evidence of the fact that semi-conscious right tendencies exist in the Party, and that hitherto there has not been a sufficiently well organised opposition in the Party. We have not opposed sufficiently, and we shall do so more in the future.
I come now to the situation in the Party. It has often been asked: do we require ten men like Remmele and Thälmann? That was the Central Committee which should have drawn fresh political and organisational forces to its aid. It was a Central Committee, it was the best and most valuable that we had in the Party. Of course I will not put forward the theory of Faust, but, comrades, it is the material we have. The greatest reproach that can be made against the Central Committee is that it did not know how to employ this, we may say, gold of the working class, but instead argued over theses and every Radek article was taken for discussion. You do not understand how to lend an ear to the working-class groups I referred to. This by no means implies that we can dispense with intellectuals—that would be demagogy. We need all our comrades from the intelligentsia, but we must once and for all adopt a firm basis.
What should be done now? A change in the leadership must be made now. What change? That the present majority on the Central Committee work with the Left wing of the Party, with the support and control of the Communist International: this is the advice we give you. The Poles say that on the German question we have sought a middle course. The Polish Party has never made any other proposal. They can always make their proposals. I do not think it becomes a party like the Polish Party to shed tears when we have suffered defeat.
(Walsky: We do not shed tears.)
You have decided on the letter to the Russian Communist Party without hearing us. You described this as a Solomon policy without making any proposals. It is to be hoped that you will make some proposal. All you propose in your letter is that people should not quarrel.
We hope that up till now we have acted correctly. You frequently say Muslov and Fischer are bad, Thälmann is good. Comrades, I have witnessed such things in our Party. But such methods are rarely successful. I know the worker not less well than you, and they resolutely protest against such attempts at splitting. There are shades of differences between Thälmann and Muslov, political and personal. That is clear. Thalmänn comes out of the very heart of the working class, Muslov comes from the intelligentsia.
(Walcher: Thälmann gave of his best on the Central Committee.)
( 48 )
