Workers of all Countries Unite!
TWELVE DAYS
IN GERMANY
By G. ZINOVIEV.
Price Sixpence
GLASGOW:
THE UNION PUBLISHING CO.
93 Great Western Road
1921
Workers of all Countries, Unite!
TWELVE DAYS
IN GERMANY
By G. ZINOVIEV.
Price Sixpence
GLASGOW:
THE UNION PUBLISHING CO.
93 Great Western Road
1921
Third Anniversary of the
Russian October Revolution
This Pamphlet deals with the October Revolution, the struggles of the Soviet Government, the Red Army, the success of the Soviet constructive work, the Peasant and the Soviet Government, etc.
As only a limited quantity of these are being printed, you are requested to order immediately from—
UNION PUBLISHING CO., 93 Gt. Western Road
St. George's Cross, GLASGOW
TWELVE DAYS IN
GERMANY
. . . I am off to Germany.
The first question, which naturally arises in the minds of all of us is: how has it happened that the German Government has given me permission to enter the country? Various guesses have been made. Those comrades who are most in touch with the "diplomatic" world suppose that this is due to the desire of the German Government to do something towards a rapproachment with Soviet Russia. More practical minded comrades, who are in touch with the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission, express the view that the German White Guards desire simply to inveigle me into Germany, and there, under the pretext that some part of my speech is bound to constitute an "offence" against the German laws,—arrest me. Other comrades suppose that I am allowed to enter Germany chiefly because the bourgeoisie desires to split the Independent Party of Germany, and hopes that my arrival will precipitate that split. There are also comrades who suppose that the decision of the German Government is due to all the above-mentioned considerations taken together.
However this may be—I am going.
Now, after all that I have seen and heard in Germany, I am convinced that the decision of the German Government to allow me to reside ten days in Germany was dictated by two considerations. The first and principal one: the position of the leaders of the Right Wing of the German bourgeoisie,—Hilferding, Dittmann, Moses, Dissmann, Kohn, and Company,—have for a long time past been personæ gratæ in the most influential government ("socialist" and "democratic") circles.
The German bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists know perfectly well that the Right Wing of the Independents is their ally, their reserve force, their hope for the immediate future. The leaders of the German bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists were undoubtedly anxious to avoid anything that could embarrass the sorely tried leaders of the Right Wing of the Independents at the forthcoming Party congress at Halle. The position was such that, had I been forbidden to enter Germany, the position of these leaders would undoubtedly have been rendered more difficult under the prevailing circumstances.
Let us see how things stood. The congress at Halle had to settle one question only? Is the Independent Party going to join the Third International? To refuse to admit a representative of the Third International, when that question had to be discussed, would be equivalent to a confession that the bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists, who had it in their power to admit or to refuse me, were supporting those who do not want the Independents to join the Third International. Permission to enter the country was granted to the Russian Menshevik Martov and to the French representative of the "Centre," Longuet, who were going to Halle in order to save the leaders of the Right Wing. Had the representative of the Third International been refused that permission, our supporters would only have had to point out that fact, and it would have been clear to everybody that the bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists were in league against the "Left Independents." This would have been far too disadvantageous to Hilferding and Co. They had to choose the lesser of two evils. The other reason was undoubtedly the fact that part of the bourgeoisie—the dull-witted part of it—thought that a split in the Independent Party would be to the advantage of the bourgeoisie. It was precisely that part of the bourgeoisie which had seized on the elementary idea that, if there was to be a split in any Labour party, it was always bound to be to the advantage of the bourgeoisie. Such was the notion of this section of the bourgeoisie, far removed from the subtler idea, that splits are not all alike and that the clearing of a Labour party of elements of the right and "trimmers" may work out in favour of the revolution and not of the counter-revolution. The wise-heads of the Scheidemann party, well-informed as they were, knew that a split was inevitable in any case, and were in favour of allowing the representative of the Third International to appear in order to make the petty bourgeois and nationalist workers believe that "Moscow" was to blame for the split.
Such was the combination of forces among the bourgeois and Social Democratic leaders, which finally led to my obtaining leave to enter Germany.
… I am getting ready hurriedly, and at 1 a.m. on 9th October leave for Reval. In Reval I remained only a few hours. I took the Esthonian steamer "Wasa," a small passenger and cargo steamer. She usually takes only twenty/thirty persons on board. This time she had to take no less than seventy-five. Most of the new passengers came on board, to the surprise of the captain, during the last few hours. The captain owes this sudden incursion of passengers to me.
Why this sudden rush of passengers? The riddle is easily solved. They were spies of all countries and of all nations. Reval has absolutely no claim to be and no chance of becoming an important international centre, but it can claim the honour of having become the centre of an international spy system. It is honeycombed with them. One can hardly walk along without hitting against one of them. They spy over one another. All the Great Powers of the world, and the lesser powers as well, keep a couple of dozen spies at Reval. It can be imagined what a sensation was caused among these gentry when they suddenly learned that I was passing through Reval, boarding a steamer, and going to Germany!
Well-informed comrades told me that this sudden news caused extraordinary excitement among the spies of all countries. Every secret service had its own quasi-scientific theory as to why I was going, how it was that I had been admitted, etc., etc. At the same time each agency pretended to possess the most authentic information, which the agencies of the rival country would never be able to obtain. In consequence, these honourable gentlemen swarmed our ship like flies on a lump of sugar. This presented a most picturesque scene. I was accompanied by a Bulgarian comrade, Shablin, and a Petrograd comrade, Yonov. Besides, there were on the same steamer five Soviet diplomatic couriers on their way to Germany, Czecho-Slovakia and Austria. We Russians thus numbered eight men in all. There were at least forty spies, an average of five to each Communist! There were English, French, German, Lettish, Esthonian, Austrian, Czecho-Slovak, and many others. It was, so to say, a veritable international of spies. One could hardly show his nose on deck without being surrounded on all sides by these honourable gentlemen. All sorts and conditions of people were present there. Well-dressed ladies, English dandies, gentlemen dressed up as "workmen," etc. We did not derive the least pleasure in meeting these gentlemen, whose very faces invited insults, and were in no way pleasant to contemplate. We could hardly move a step without meeting them. When not engaged in other occupations they played at cards, and as usual quarrelled amongst themselves. Since spying on us could not occupy the whole of their spare time, they were engaged in spying upon each other. This was extremely funny.
Under this trusty escort we arrived at Stettin after two-and-a-half days.
In Stettin we were met by the German comrades: the president of the Sailors' Union, a Communist-Anarchist, member of the German Communist Party, and Comrade Kurt Geher, one of the best known leaders of the Left Wing of the Independent Party. The first question we put to Comrade Kurt Geher was: who is in the majority at the congress; we or they, the "left" or the "right" Comarde Geher reassured us that our faction was as firm as a rock. This news immediately put us in a most cheerful mood. The Stettin workmen and sailors had been informed of our arrival. They all wanted to take part in the welcome. The leading comrades, however, dissuaded them, considering quite rightly that they should not from the very first embarrass our stay in Germany. Next to the sailors, who came to meet us, stood some well-fed, immaculately-dressed bourgeois. Our comrades told us: these are the leaders of the so-called "Orgesh" organisation (a White Guard organisation led by reactionary Generals and officers, which in some parts of Germany terrorises the whole population. The organiser of this gang is Colonel Escherich. Hence—Org. Esch., or commonly Orgesh). These gentry also came "to meet" us. The second group of representatives of the same honourable organisation, which consisted of a few young men of an equally disagreeable type, were waiting for us on the staircase of the hotel, where we remained a couple of hours until the next train. After a few hours we were sitting in a train on the way to Berlin. Comrade Geher was so considerate as to bring with him all the papers and news of the last few days. They showed that the gulf between the "Rights" and the "Lefts" of the Independents had greatly widened, and the leaders of the "Rights" were acting basely. The German comrades, who accompanied us, were anxious about our safety. They assured us that the "Orgesh" and the "Noskeites" (that is the name given in Germany to the cut-throats of Mr Noske) would undoubtedly try to play a dirty trick on us.
For several days past no bourgeois papers appeared in Berlin, as a printers' strike was in progress. Only the Communist and the so-called "Socialist" papers appeared. "Vorwarts" and "Freiheit" met us with howls and gnashing of teeth. The same night—midnight of the 12th October—we arrived at Halle. Here we were met by Comrade Levi and some other members of the German Communist Party, as well as by the grey-haired Adolf Hoffman, Daumig, Koennen, and other leaders of the Left Wing of the Independents.
At 2 a.m. we organised a short preliminary consultation. We agree on our tactics. The main thing we are striving to achieve is to force the Right Independents to accept battle on points of principle, to force them to take part in a political discussion.
The fact is that on their return from Moscow, Crispien, Dittman and Co. immediately side-tracked the issue in Germany to the question of organisation. They were ever ready to vow that—"We stand for the Third International. There is hardly any question on which we disagree with the Third International. We only demand a greater independence for for party. We do not wish to be altogether deprived of our autonomy. We have agreed to eighteen conditions worked out in Moscow, but we object to the Bolsheviks stiffening these conditions by adding, at the last moment, three new conditions. We wish to belong to the Third International, but we reject the dictatorship of Moscow."
Such was the main line of argument adopted by all the Right Independents. Why did the over-wise leaders of the Right Independents try to turn the discussion on to that ground? The answer is obvious. They cannot accept battle with the Communist International on points of principle. The overwhelming majority of the German workers are on the side of the Russian Revolution, on the side of the Soviet Government, on the side of the Communist International. To tell the workers openly that they are against Soviet Russia, against the dictatorship of the proletariat, against the programme of the Communist International—means to lose nearly all support from the rank and file of the workers. This is welll understood by the Right leaders of the Independents. They could only harp on one string—i.e., the question of organisation. But in this respect the Right spared no efforts in exaggerating their case. They pandered to the lowest nationalist instincts of the workers. They did not disdain to appeal to the very sentiments, which played such a fatal part at the beginning of the imperialist war. The Right Independent papers displayed headlines like—"The Moscow Knout," "Despots from Moscow," "The Moscow Dictatorship," etc. Only references to the "Cossacks" were missing to make the picture complete.
If the Right Independents succeeded in obtaining a considerable minority at the congress, it was due to the fact that at the preliminary discussions before the congress they avoided all arguments based on principle and even proclaimed their agreement in principle with the Third International, thus sidetracking the dispute to the famous twenty-one conditions, which they thoroughly misinterpreted and distorted in a most cynical manner.
Absolutely everything within human power was done by the leaders of Right Independents to confuse the real difference in principle existing between the Communists and the Right Independents. The leaders of the Right Independents seem to have entered into a conspiracy to conceal the truth from the workers at all costs. The deception of the workers is carried out systematically and reduced to a fine art. When I saw the clever rascally game being played by the leaders of the Right Independents at the congress, to conceal from the workers the real meaning of the split, I recalled Noske's book.
If the reader is not acquainted with Noske's book entitled "From Kiel to Kapp," I earnestly advise him to read it. It is a remarkable book. It is a book written by a typical representative of the labour bureaucracy, whom the bourgeoisie has placed at the head of the government, and who became an avowed executioner of the working class, forced by the course of events to go to all lengths in his nefarious task. Noske begins his account by describing how he was met at Kiel by a crowd of 20,000 sailors on the first day of the November Revolution in Germany. This is most interesting on the first days of the revolution the huge crowds of revolutionary sailors and workers regarded Noske and his party as their leaders. At the Kiel station this crowd of 20,000 men literally carried Herr Noske shoulder high. We cannot help recalling the familiar features of the first months of our March revolution when the workers' and soldiers' masses were doing likewise to Kerensky, the counter-revolutionary babbler and humbug. The soul of the popular masses, which awakens in days of revolution, is like the soul of a child. It seems to be made of wax. And, alas! in the first period any clever humbug can mould it into anything he pleases.
But, the most remarkable thing in Noske's book is that it gives a clear idea of how the Social-Democratic Party hatched treason to the revolution from the very first moments of its birth. With laudable frankness and in a business-like fashion, with all the details, dates, facts, documents, etc., Noske tells us how he and his party betrayed the working class of Germany. This treason may be said to have been scientifically organised. The counter-revolutionary part played by the German Social Democracy and its leaders is most clearly illustrated in Noske's book.
At the present time a similar treason is being perpetrated by the Right Independents and their leaders. The division of functions by these Right leaders of the Independents is carried out to perfection. The deception of the workers is once more organised on "scientific" lines. The meetings of these Right leaders of the Independents vividly reminds us of the Roman augurs, who could not face each other without laughing. A day will come when an "Independent" Noske (e.g., Dissmann) will frankly relate how the Right leaders cheated their faction at Halle!
Poor deluded workers! When will the day come when all the workers will know their traitor "leaders"! When shall we at last reach a period when men like Crispien, Hilferding, Dittmann and others will no longer be able to gather a whole party in the course of a few weeks by means of an obvious and systematic deception of the workers? Under such circumstances our task was to force a discussion by all manner of means, be it even at the party congress, on the fundamental questions of principle—the programme and tactics of the Third International. We at once fell in with the views of the leaders of the Left Independents. Our programme was drafted. The next morning at 9 a.m. we were already on the field of battle, in the hall where the congress was to take place.
**********
At the beginning of the congress the Lefts had a majority of 50. Towards the end of the congress, at the time of the principal division this majority grew to over 80, and the chief motion concerning the acceptance of the twenty-one conditions of admission to the Third International was carried by a nearly two to one majority.
The Right leaders, as is well known, were trying to rush the congress, in spite of the protests on the part of the Lefts and the Executive Committee of the Third International. The wire pullers of the Right Wing were in a hurry, and called together a congress in the course of some four or five weeks. They reckoned on taking the German workers unawares. Most of the papers and the whole party machine were in the hands of the Rights. The Rights used their fifty dailies to open a fierce campaign of lies and calumny against "Moscow," against the Third International, against their own comrades of the Left; "Freiheit," edited by Herr Hilferding, was especially active in this respect. In Moscow we pointed out to Crispien and Dittmann that "Freiheit" is a counter-revolutionary periodical after the taste of Kautsky. They replied, however, that they had no voice in it, that the "Freiheit" was not the central organ of the party for which the party as a whole could be held responsible; that it was the organ of "your" Berlin Left organisation. "If the Berliners could not create such a press as would satisfy you, this is not their (Crispien's, etc.) fault, but that of the Berliners."
The hypocrisy underlying their arguments is seen from the following: The Berlin organisation had an overwhelming majority for the Lefts; the Berlin organisation, according to all the rules of the constitution, expressed lack of confidence in Hilferding, and demanded a change of editorship. But Hilferding. "the democrat," and his followers the famous and ardent supporters of "government by the people," completely ignored the decision of the Berlin organisation. They did what Scheidemann did in 1915 with regard to the "Vorwarts." They stole the paper from the Berlin workers, making use of the bourgeois courts and police, which of course backed the Rights against the Left.
However, in spite of all the subterfuges of the Right Wing, in spite of the campaign of calumny in the press, and the short space oi time which the Lefts had at their disposal to enlighten the workers, our side secured the majority. If under such conditions the Communist elements, i.e. the Left Independents, secured a two-thirds majority at the congress, it is obvious that among the rank and file of the party, among the workers, the Lefts could have no less than nine-tenths on their side. The next few weeks or months will prove this.
We are on the field of battle. The audience in the hall is divided in two sections: it is as if a knife has cut them sharply in two. Two parties are present. The relations between the Rights and Lefts have become very strained during the pre-congress deliberations, and at the congress itself we had to deal with bitter enemies. There were two chairmen presiding over the meeting—the representative of the Left, Brass, a worker, and the representative of the Right, no other than Dittmann; that very same Dittmann who had appeared as a sordid calumniator of Soviet Russia, and had been honoured by the notorious Anti-Bolshevik League, which reprinted in Its press his Insinuations against Russia.
We were greatly surprised, and asked our Left comrades how, being in the majority at the congress, they could allow such a rascal as Dittman to act as chairman. The Lefts explained: "The Right leaders are continually trying to find fault with us over petty formalities; they are seeking a pretext to leave the congress in order to prevent a discussion on points of principle and thus make the congress a failure. We decided to yield to them in all matters of secondary, importance, in order to elucidate matters, and make them appear in such a light that every workman would see who possesses the majority and who was causing the split in the party."
In order to achieve that object the Lefts agreed that the mandatory commission and the presidium should consist of equal numbers of representatives of the two sides. For the same reason the Lefts agreed even to the hateful candidature of Dittman. The Left comrades said he represents not the whole congress, not us, but the Right Wing in the presidium. If the Right Wing was unable to find a more worthy representative than Dittmann, so much the worse for the Right Wing…
We take our seats next to comrade Adolf Hoffman and the other leaders of the Left section of the congress. We look around and gradually acquaint ourselves with the composition of the two sections of the congress. What a familiar sight! We saw exactly the same picture some 10 years ago and earlier at our congresses at which the Mensheviks participated. On one side workers only, on the other, an overwhelming majority of intellectuals.
We closely inspect the Left Wing. In the front row there are two small tables at which the leaders are seated. Among the latter we can discern one or two intellectuals, but the rest, some 99 per cent, of the Left Wing, consists exclusively of born-and-bred working men, many of whom even now are working at the factories and works. Now of he composition of the Right Wing! A few dozen workers will be found there. These belong mainly to the class of "officials," but the bulk of the section, all the leaders, are exclusively legislators, editors, journalists, lawyers, doctors, etc. There are also three or four big bank officials and wire pullers. Quite a different social make-up, a different type, a different tone and temper. The so-called "flower" of the party officialdom and intellectuals is undoubtedly on the side of the Rights. We witnessed just the same in our party in the days before the Mensheviks gladdened us by their departure…
A few words on the principal leaders of the Right Wing at the congress will explain much.
As far as theory and ideas are concerned the principal leader of the Right Wing is undoubtedly Rudolf Hilferding. His features remind us of a "respectable" stockbroker or a well-to-do banker. He is persona gratæ with representatives of the British diplomatic mission in Berlin, with the fashionable political salons of ladies of rank, and sometimes he appears at the meetings of trade union officials and at congresses. He is no believer in revolution; it is well he believes in realities. But then he does not believe in anything. You can see it in his face, nay, in the very folds of his coat. He is a thorough sceptic; he is convinced that the high tide of revolution is over, and that at the present time Germany and the whole of Europe is passing through the last convulsions of the revolutionary upheaval. All that has passed he regards—as did our kadets and Mensheviks some time ago—as "the raging of the elements." A conversation of his with an English diplomat, an intrigue with some "Left" Scheidemannist are of far greater importance in his eyes, as a "factor" of progress than a movement of hundreds of thousands of unemployed in Germany, or the growing unrest of the Eastern nations. Herr Hilferding, from the heights of his smug "scholastic" greatness, arrogantly mocks at everybody whose political wisdom is inferior to his own. At the party conference of the Independents, which took place at Berlin some three weeks ago, this scholar spoke with inimitable stupidity of "Mullahs from Khiva" (not so well versed in Marx as he, Herr Hilferding), whom the demagogues, the Bolsheviks, were trying to draw into the Communist International. Under "Mullahs from Khiva," the learned Herr Hilferding understands the Baku congress of the nations of the East, and generally speaking the movement of oppressed nationalities. This movement Herr Hilferding, and with him the other Right Independents, treat with sublime contempt as a "non-Marxian" movement, devoid of serious purpose, and wholly unworthy of any attention from such enlightened statesmen as Crispien and Dittman. Hilferding possesses in abundance that gift of senile doctrinaire reasoning which is so typical of Kautsky in the period of his decline. Kautsky, however, is an "honest" opportunist, whereas his worthy disciple, Hilferding, besides scholastic pedantism, displays other traits more worthy of a stock exchange gambler. In his struggle against the workers' revolution Kautsky seeks inspiration mainly in books. His pupil Hilferding, on the other hand, seeks it also in the antechamber of the British diplomats, in the cabinets of bank managers, and if necessary in other even more savoury places. The whole mental equipment of the Right Wing of the Independents is undoubtedly borrowed from Kautsky. All the orators of the Right Wing use the stinted arguments of Kautsky, and nevertheless they try to avoid mentioning Kautsky. Their unworthy attitude to their master, their fear of being regarded as in touch with one who in fact is the spiritual leader of the whole section of the Right Independents, shows well their utter cowardice. Hilferding is a sort of substitute for Kautsky (substitutes are now very much in vogue in Germany). The wily Hilferding is more permissible than the spiritual "leader," the blunt, outspoken Kautsky. Owing to his connections with bankers and smart business men Hilferding possesses more evasiveness than his master Kautsky. He is more adept in evading a direct answer to difficult questions. He will hold his tongue where Kautsky is candid enough to blurt out counter-revolutionary rubbish. Hilferding can even,if needs be, utter two or three stereotyped official "revolutionary" sentences. He will always be able to play up to the actual wire-pullers of the Right section of the Independents, like Dissmann and Co. In a word he is at once accommodating, flexible, and wise. He has no principle which he would not substitute at a moment's notice. When necessary he will quote a few passages from Marx and Engels just for the sake of showing off his education. In short, he is just that "spiritual" leader which the Right section of the Independents so badly needs. The task of leading a mob of petty bourgeois and officials suits him to perfection. He is precisely in his place as the "pontiff," the high priest and prophet of this section, who are only second rate Scheidemannists.
Hilferding appeared as my chief opponent. His speech lasted about three hours.
He started his speech against us with the following subterfuge. On the platform, where the committee of the congress was seated, there stood a big poster. On one side was written in German, "Workers of the world unite!" On the other—also in German—"To the German workers, from the Petrograd Labour Commune." I am not certain how this banner came to Halle. Apparently it was brought back by the German delegates after the First Congress of the Communist International.
On the first day of the congress this poster was turned to the audience, with that side showing which bore the inscription, "Workers of the world unite!" But on the day when my speech was delivered, perhaps intentionally or otherwise, this poster was turned the other way round. Hilferding thought it appropriate to begin with a remark directed to the circumstance.
This is symbolic, he said. It is most significant that the Petrograd Labour Commune should appear on the stage! … Hilferding, however, miscalculated the effect of his remark. The vast majority of the congress, which hitherto had paid no attention to the inscription on the poster, now, thanks to the kind assistance of Herr Hilferding, turned its gaze to these words and gave a hearty cheer for the Petrograd Labour Commune. The first part of Hilferding's speech was most characteristic. He mentioned in it the "Schmutz-Konkurrenz, i.e., the "low competition" of the Left leaders of the Independents against the Right leaders. The essence of this reproof was as follows: "You, the leaders of the Left Independents, yourselves belong to the same caste as we do. Your profession is the same as ours. You are leaders just as we are. In order to ingratiate yourself with the masses you are now resorting to watchwords more extreme than ours. But this is nothing else than "low competition" on your part. You wish to cut us out by pandering to the low instincts of the masses. But you will be punished for that (threateningly); to-morrow the masses will find even your watchwords not sufficiently extreme, the syndicalists and anarchists will meanly compete against you, and the masses will go over to the side of these more extreme leaders." The psychology of Hilferdlng is typical of a shopkeeper, who regards everything from the standpoint of one who is first and foremost afraid of competition. He even uses purely commercial terms. The whole struggle of principles which is now tearing the labour movement in two is reduced, in his eyes, to a "competition among leaders." This pussilanimous fellow can only find one explanation for the difference in opinion which is now dividing the ranks of the German labour movement, and that is, sordid competition.
Although Rudolf Hilferding is the spiritual leader of the Right Independents, their practical leader is Herr Dissman. (N.B.—Dissmann and not Dittmann.) This Dissmann is at the present time the president of the German National Union of Metal Workers. A comparatively short time ago he was in the ranks of those who opposed Legien. Sometimes he pretends to do so now, but that only in words. As to Legien, he is the biggest of the big guns of the counter-revolutionary trade union officials in Germany. But in fact Dissmann is already Legien's right hand. He is the rising star and hope of the whole counter-revolutionary trade union bureaucracy of Germany. Legien is too old. His star is on the decline. Someone more energetic, more persistent and younger is needed, and Dissmann is the right, man. His recent playing up to the "Left" can only enhance his opportunities. In the eyes of the wide masses of workers he has compromised himself less than the others, he is a more suitable person.
Dissmann himself is fully aware of his destiny to supplant Legien, and then to become another Legien. He anticipates that moment impatiently, and is prepared to give anything in order to hasten it. He will welcome that happy moment. Everything else is of minor importance compared to this "ideal," and he is ready to use any means in order to reach his goal. He looks with annoyance not unmixed with indignation at anybody who does not understand the simple fact that he, Dissmann, is marked by the finger of God and by Fate itself to become a new Legien.
The leading part in the Right section is taken by a group of trade unionists numbering 80 delegates—about half of the whole section. In that trade union group the leading part is undoubtedly played by Dissmann. The intellectual leaders like Hilferding and Ledebour, in search for some "mass" support, turn to the trade unions. There they find only the group led by Dissmann. In order to obtain the support of that group the intellectual leaders are compelled to do anything the trade unionists may demand. This was too obviously demonstrated at the congress.
The question of the attitude to the trade unions, and especially to the so-called International of Trade Unions at Amsterdam, played a most important part in the discussions at the party meeting at Halle. As is well known, the Second Congress of the Communist International made one of the conditions of admittance to the Communist International the struggle against the Yellow leaders at the head of that Amsterdam "International" of Trade Unions. When Dissmann and Crispien were in Moscow they did not utter a single word against this clause. They understood that to defend the Amsterdam Trade Union "International" meant to compromise themselves. They were perfectly aware that at the head of the Amsterdam organisation were such noted Yellow traitors as Legien, Just, and Gompers. In Moscow they did not say a word in defence of the Yellow Amsterdam International. But we witnessed quite a different sight at the party meeting in Halle. In the draft of the resolution drawn up by the Right section the defence of Amsterdam occupies the first place. Twice this resolution mentions Amsterdam, and each time defends it energetically against Moscow. Such was the watchword of the Right Independents at the Halle Conference. In this connection it is interesting to note how the whole Right section received comrade Losovsky's speech. Comrade Losovsky spoke mainly as a trade unionist. He devoted his speech chiefly to the question of the Amsterdam "International." His speech was admirably constructed. In the quietest possible manner he simply expounded facts and nothing more. And the more facts adduced by the orator, the more furious became Dittmann and Co. In the end that clique could no longer contain themselves, and created a disorder lasting two hours. Dittmann and Co. averred that Losovsky had insulted them.
After a long altercation the meeting was suspended, and a mixed commission was appointed to examine the stenographic report of Losovsky's speech in order to ascertain whether his speech contained anything insulting. Even the Rights were compelled to acknowledge later that the speech was absolutely free from anything offensive. Dittmann and his friends were driven to confess that it was not in the expression of the orator but in "the whole tendency of his speech," which was such as to give offence to the German trade unions.
Why were the Rights so painfully sensitive to the speech of Comrade Losovsky? Simply because, by stating mere facts concerning the activity of the notorious Amsterdam "International" Comrade Losovsky opened the eyes of those workers who still supported the Right. The Right leaders felt that they would lose their hold as soon as the workers learned the truth about Amsterdam.
All the leaders of the Right Independents, especially Hilferding and Crispien, suddenly became "experts" on the trade union movement, and ardent worshippers of Amsterdam.
How is this to be explained? Why did the leaders of the Right section of the Independents suddenly become such ardent champions of Amsterdam? The more far-sighted of them were aware, of course, that they were defending a hopeless cause, and that this advocacy would in the long run be detrimental to them. Did not the section of the Right Independents announce to all and sundry that it wished to enter the Communist International? And who does not know that the Amsterdam organisation, far from being part of the Third International, is part and parcel of the Second International? Now. at all labour meetings the leaders of the Right Independents will be taunted with being advocates of Legien, Just, Gompers, and the others, i.e., open social traitors. Why did the leaders of the Right Independents choose these tactics? Just because the Right leaders have not, and cannot have, any other mass support than the trade union group. As to Dissmann and Co., they, like Shylock, demanded their pound of flesh: "If you want us to vote for you, you must solemnly and publicly subscribe before the congress and the whole world that you are in favour of Amsterdam, i.e., in favour of Legien, Just and Co." If Hilferding. Ledebour and Co. are forced to compromise themselves to that extent, surely it was because they were in a fix. They otherwise risked becoming generals without an army.
The Right leaders of the German trade unions form the chief support of the bourgeois counter-revolution. That is clearer now than ever. And one of the worst representatives of these reactionaries is undoubtedly Dissmann. He is not eloquent, but like all reactionaries he is a "man of action." He organised at the congress a group of irreconcilables, who from the very first made it their aim to disorganise the congress and to prevent any discussions on the points of principle.
Dissman's group used every conceivable opportunity to create disorder at the congress by throwing chairs about and hurling insults at Lefts, etc.
Dissmann reminds us somewhat of Noske, said several of our Left comrades, who knew Dissmann well. And, indeed, whoever observed the furious anger of this man, whoever saw with what hatred this bureaucrat regarded the whole of the Left, whoever observed the party tricks to which this gentleman resorted at the congress, must have acknowledged that this remark was not without foundation. Dissmann first established his reputation in the trade union movement as a representative of the Left. But as soon as he got the job he wanted he immediately followed the same trade union policy as did the Rights. All the workers see now that only a change of persons, not of policy, took place. At the recent congress of the Factory Committees, Dissmann did practically all that was desired by Legien. Dissmann is a sort of "whip." No doubt, in the party of the Right Independents Dissmann will be a virtual master. He will there put his feet on the table and make Ledebour and Hilferding dance to his tune.
If the bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists require a new hangman for the working class, if they decide that in place of Noske they want a man with a different name, we may be sure that among the principal candidates they will name Dissmann. And we may assert with equal confidence that if ever the bourgeoisie and the Scheidemannists entrust great power to Dissmann, he will try and justify their trust in him; he will prove a faithful henchman of the bourgeoisie, a furious watchdog of the middle class, just as Noske did.
After Dissmann the most influential man in the Rights section is Dittman. He is a typical representative of that comparatively small but very noxious counter-revolutionary caste, the labour aristocracy. Marx, in his time, used to mock at some of the English representatives of this type, who valued an invitation to the Lord Mayor's banquet far more than the confidence shown to them by their own class. Dittmann tries to be just as "respectable" as the representatives of the "best" society. He possesses as "good manners" as any other member of the committee of the German Reichstag. He dresses as well as any "genuine" M.P. of the bourgeoisie, and prides himself, like most parvenues, on possessing "good manners," "refinement" and culture. He wants to prove that he does not come from the dregs of society, and is no way inferior to "real" gentlemen, and for that purpose he carries about with him the appurtenances of the dandy, a small mirror and a comb, to which he resorts upon every public appearance, so as not to show himself at a disadvantage.
His path has been long and thorny. When young, he committed youthful "indiscretions" and at one time was regarded as belonging to the Lefts. I remember when I was at the party congress in Jena in 1910 the late Rosa Luxembourg first introduced Dittmann to me, stating that he was one of her pupils. It is true that Dittmann at that very same party congress twice betrayed his instructress. None the less at that time he was not averse to playing the part of "Left." So long as the old Social Democratic Party was united and strong, Dittmann was patiently working in its ranks, trusting to make a name for himself in the party by his persistent work. At the beginning of the Imperialist War Dittmann tamely voted for the war credits, and passed over to the Independents only when it became clear that the old Social Democracy was beginning to lose its supporters. Before the revolution Dittmann was imprisoned—at that time guilty and innocent were imprisoned in Germany. This circumstance enhanced his popularity among the workers. When the revolution came Dittmann was one of the first "Socialists" to scrape through into the "revolutionary" government, and was one of the last to leave it, and most unwillingly too. On his arrival in Moscow to the Second Congress of the Communist International, Dittmann was so unpleasantly obsequious to all of us, that we really felt ashamed of him. So long as he thought that we would not force him to say yes or no, that he and his friends would succeed in slipping into the Third International, Dittmann was all honey, he was simply sickening. We often said to each other: "This man always wants to ingratiate himself with those whom he expects will be useful to him." But it soon dawned on Dittmann that neither he nor his friends would succeed in wriggling themselves into the Third International. It is remarkable how this petty philistine and big mischief-maker avenged himself. An unimportant incident with a few dozen German emigrant workers was exaggerated by Dittmann into a big "affair." He collected "spurious material" from calumniators and sycophants (like Martov), took them carefully to Germany and there, immediately on his arrival, with a maliciousness natural to little minds, hurled that stink-bomb at Soviet Russia. From that time, needless to add, he became the idol of all the counter-revolutionary rabble of Germany. He was carried shoulder high, he was declared the only worthy statesman, his calumnies were reprinted by the anti-Bolshevik League and published by means of social posters.
Who gave him the so-called "material"? Apparently Martov was among his principal agents. The authenticity of the "material" published by Dittmann may be judged by the following: that gentleman dares to affirm that in our party (i.e., in the Russian Communist Party) out of a total of 600,000 members 418,000 are Soviet employees and only 12 per cent, are workers! These "data," Dittmann barefacedly asserts, were published by the Central Committee of our Party. The other information gathered and published by Dittmann is equally authentic.
When I publicly challenged him from the platform of the party congress to enter into a public debate with me on the question of the conditions in Soviet Russia. Dittmann preferred to be silent. When the organisers of the meeting in Berlin sent him a written invitation to appear at the debate, Dittmann did not even reply. This is quite in keeping with his character.
The fourth "leader" of the Right Independents—Crispien, is a man of similar type. He also had known better days in his youth, and was then a radical. But when he turned thirty he "grew wiser." He is as respectable and dignified as Dittmann, and he is equally a vacuum as far as ideas are concerned. His manners remind one of our old Socialist Revolutionaries. He tries to preserve the appearance of revolutionary dignity. Whеп necessary he can make a display of a few borrowed revolutionary stock sentences, he can even assume a pathetic air. In some respects he combines in himself all that is worst in the Menshevik and Social Revolutionary parties.
Crispien's style is illimitable long-winded and trivial. One can hardly imagine greater poverty in ideas. I had the dubious pleasure of meeting Crispien for the first time in Moscow. We often asked ourselves at that time how it could happen that an insignificant man like him could be president and leader of a German labour party, numbering over a million members. Well-informed men answered—and apparently they were right—that Crispien was at one time president of the party precisely because, owing to the general condition of affairs in the party, a president was wanted who possessed neither ideas nor character—a man who could by smooth words "reconcile" all the contradictions which were rife in the party, who could, to use a German expression, "talk away" all the delicate questions which had to be solved. Anybody who has looked through Crispien's pamphlets will be surprised at the dull-wittedness of the author. The German Labour movement has never yet had a more trivial, insipid, ignorant, and wordy "leader."
Crispien pretends to be in favour of proletarian dictatorship. But he understands it in the light of the Erfurt programme. Crispien is in favour of the Soviet system, but he understands it in the light of Kautsky's and Hilferding's theories. Crispien "in principle" agrees with the employment of violence, but he is against terror. Crispien "in principle" is for the proletarian revolution, but he is against civil war and rebellion. Crispien is the quintessence of all the philistine and petty bourgeois elements which are now trying to conceal themselves with the cloak of Socialism. He is loquacious, affable and tame as long as he deals with indifferent topics, when he has to feed the audience with a liberal ration of "revolutionary" phrases. But when it is a question of a serious struggle, Crispien becomes simultaneously coarse and cowardly. At the Halle Congress we did not see the sanctimonious Crispien; there we saw another Crispien, who tried to retain power by every available means, who knew of no baseness which he was not prepared to commit in order to remain in power. He belongs to that type of men of whom we can say beforehand: he has stepped upon the inclined plane and will slip down to the very bottom. Some workers, members of the party congress, told me with good reason that there is only one difference between Crispien and Scheidemann, and that is that Scheidemann is fair while Crispien is a shade darker.
George Ledebour is quite unique. He has now become leader and president of the "Right" Independent party, though up till now he was not taken seriously by Rights, who regarded him as a popular fool. The Right Independents have now purposely placed him in the forefront, being well aware of the extraordinary ambition of this old man. They managed to make him the first to sign the resolution of the Rights. The outer world could thus imagine that he was playing a leading part.
We must confess that before the Halle Congress we did not fully share the estimate which the German Communists and the Left Independents formed of Ledebour. We knew of course that Ledebour was the personification of the old bourgeois democratic views on Socialism, that to the end of his days he would remain a typical democrat of the 1848 period. We had read his reactionary middle-class statements about terror. We knew he was not a Marxist and could never become one. But still, we valued him as an old fighter, a brave man taking part in the Labour movement, not out of any selfish motives, but in order to serve the working class. Thus when the German Communists and the Left Independents told us that Ledebour was now playing a counter-revolutionary role in Germany, we were inclined to regard it as an exaggeration. Alas, all that we saw and heard in Germany convinced us that we were in the wrong and that the German Communists and Left Independents were quite right.
Ledebour has become the tool of the darkest, vilest and most bloodthirsty elements, which are now taking shelter under the cover of the Right Independent party. His temperament, idiosyncrasies and his senile prejudices make him a most suitable figurehead for the Rights, whom gentlemen like Dissmann can lead on a string.
We have alreday said that Dissmann is potentially another Noske. If Dissmann has not yet shot hundreds of workers, it is only because he has not yet had the opportunity of doing so. But he already scents the smell of workers' blood, and dreams of the moment when he will be one of the ministers, and will be able to put down the "Communist rabble." Dissmann and Co. arc far too cunning openly to take upon themselves the responsibility for the dirty work they are preparing. Ledebour is just the man for it. Ledebour, from the very beginning of the Russian workers' revolution clung to one point: the question of terror. He declared dozens of times that he could not reconcile himself to terror, simply because it was "immoral." He declared dozens of times: he who admits Red terror is a reactionary. The Right Independents by cleverly flattering and praising Ledebour created such an atmosphere that Ledebour now regards himself almost a prophet. Dissmann and Crispien purposely pretend to believe that Ledebour has discovered something great on the question of terror, something which deserves to become a new gospel for the workers of the world.
The question of terror plays quite an important part in Germany. It is not a mere difference of opinion on one of the many points of tactics. It is a question which goes to the very roots of the whole proletarian revolution. As is well known, the German bourgeoisie, during the two years of the German revolution distinguished itself from the bourgeoisie of other countries by the exceptionally cruel and ruthless White terror which it applied to its "workers." Let it suffice to mention the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg. This has embittered the German workers and naturally made them hate the bourgeoisie. It is imperative that the German bourgeoisie sidetrack the German workers. It must find popular men. who will make it their special business to preach against Red terror. Such a man is Ledebour. The German bourgeoisie could not have found anybody better fitted to serve its ends. A man who for several decades took part in the Labour movement. and who is fairly popular as a mass speaker, a man who himself suffered at the hands of the bourgeoisie for the Labour cause, now goes from meeting to meeting, and with an ardour worthy of a better cause, proves that it is "immoral" and inadmissible for a worker to raise a punitive hand against the bourgeoisie. What more can the bourgeoisie desire?
Before the Halle Congress, when the conflict was specially acute, Dissmann and Crispien started to spread lies in the press and at meetings to the effect that the Left Independents were going to use terror in their struggle against the Rights and had organised for that purpose an "Assassins' Committee" ("Morder Zentrale"). It need hardly be said that the bourgeoisie of Germany was not slow in seizing upon this legend.
But this is not all. When the question of terror was debated in connection with my deportation, the Right Independents sent forward Ledebour as their spokesman, who played a very mean game. When Konnen, the speaker of the Left Independents charged the German generals with being guilty of the imperialist war, and of the murder of millions of men, when Konnen reminded the deputies of how the White Guard officers shot innocent workers in the streets of Berlin and other towns, Ledebour flung in the speaker's face the accusation that the Communists in Germany during the January days and later were organised in a "Communist Committee of Assassins."
Of course, all the White Guards in the German Reichstag howled with delight when they heard such a "revelation"! This debate in the Reichstag is undoubtedly the precursor of an epoch of new persecutions against the Communists. The bourgeoisie is preparing a new massacre of the German workers. Everything points to it! And under the circumstances such an accusation emanating from Ledebour is more valuable to the German bourgeoisie than a gold mine. We can state without exaggeration that Ledebour has paved the way for a White terror against the workers. If the While Guard officers of the "Orgesch" will once more shoot down and lynch the best leaders of German Labour as they did in January, the blame for it will be Ledebour's as well, since he, by his speech, has prepared a justification for such action on the part of the Orgesch. Up till now many regarded Ledebour merely as an old fool. But from what we have slated above it is clear that he is a bloodthirsty fool at that. The class struggle in Germany is so bitter that these so-called eccentricities of an old "democrat" of the 1848 brand become in the eyes of everybody open counter-revolutionary appeals.
The other leaders of the Right Independents are less noteworthy. Some of them are only fit to be musical comedy heroes.
Take for instance Louisa Zeitz—"Schlummertante" as she was aptly dubbed by one of the Left comrades. She has been for some reason or other appointed the spokesman of the Central Committee of the party, although in reality she is only fit to frighten birds from an orchard. She is utterly ignorant and exceedingly spiteful, and she clings to her bit of influence in the parity like a drowning man at a straw. All criticism from the revolutionary workers directed against the Central Committee which Aunt Louisa Zeitz adorns with her presence regarded by this old bureaucrat as a personal affront. The Central Committee is as much her personal property as her apron, her wardrobe, or her old overcoat.
Take Richard Lipinsky, the "venerable" bureaucrat of Leipzig—a typical office-rat. He knows all the rules and regulations of the party by heart. But he sees nothing beyond this. He does not understand the conflict of principles. He only knows that he has been secretary from times immemorial, that he gets a Gehalt (salary) of so many marks a month, that he owes obedience to Hilferding and Crispien, that wicked people want to violate the beautiful "order" and routine established by long efforts in the ranks of the German Social Democracy. Why he is not on the side of Scheidemann—heaven alone knows! He in no way differs from a "respectable" Scheidemannist. He will now, of course, be one of those who will form a living bridge between the Right Independents and the "Left" Scheidemannists!
Take Kurt Rosenfeld—a well-intentioned advocate of the good old times with an infiinitely narrow political outlook and a most flexible spine. Yesterday he was for the Lefts, to-day he is for the Right Independents. Yesterday he was prepared to prove one thing, to-day he will prove the exact opposite with equal force of conviction and even with pathos. To-day he holds with the Rights, to-morrow he will lean towards the Left, and the day after, if the wind blows in the other direction, he may again be in the ranks of the Rights. Then there is Moses, the famous author of the "Gebarstreik." A few years ago he discovered the easiest and the best means of destroying capitalism: women must organise a strike and refuse to bear children—the capitalists will then be left without workmen and without soldiers. … Now Moses is a leader of the Right Independents. He site in the front row, indignantly eyeing the turbulent Left, which has so "impertinently" transgressed the peace and decorum of a quiet home. Moses has been elected member of the Central Committee of the new Right Party. What were his merits is a secret known only to Dissmann and Crisipien and to God.
Take another individual—standing isolated, and cutting clumsy and ridiculous figure. There is only one point in his favour—his name: Theodor Liebknecht. Theodor Liebknecht, is the brother of our Karl Liebknecht. Up till now Theodor Liebknect had no hand in politics. The Independents—both Right and Left—discuss him in whispers; Theodor Liebknect is a total ignoramus as far as politics go. This, alas, is the unvarnished truth. The Rights, however, are no rhetoricians; they are "business men". Everything can be made use of in a big household, even the well-sounding name of Theodor Leibknecht. The Right Independents did the following trick: at the head of the Berlin list of candidates to the Halle Congress they placed Thedor Liebknecht next to Ledebour as candidate of the Right. I repeat, Theodor Liebknecht never took any serious part in politics. But now that he has declared himself for the Right Independents, they have picked him up (even a bit of string may be of use) and placed him at the head of the list, hoping thus to hoodwink the simple workers. And certainly such simpletons can be always found among the workers who will say: if Liebknect, the brother of Karl Liebknecht is on their side (i.e., for the Rights) they are probably not such rascals after all.
This trick shows the dexterity of Dittmann and Crispien. But what should be said of Theodor Liebknecht, who allowed such use to be made of his name? What should be said of a man who did not scruple to misuse the memory of his brother, who fell in the fight against such rascals as Dittmann and Crispien?
Theodor Liebknecht came up to me at the congress, and skaking me by the hand, said gloomily: "I am pleased to welcome you, but regret that it should be under such circumstances." Bearing in mind the mean actions of Theodor Liebknecht I was unable to reciprocate his greeting.
Such is the general-staff of the Right Independent faction.
We need only add that next to these honourable leaders were sitting the following distinguished foreign guests, representatives of the fraternal parties of other countries: Mr. Grumbach, the patented journalistic charlatan, the jingo who in the course of the war flooded the venile press of the Allies with phantastic "news" from Germany. Next to Grumbach was seated his honourable colleague Martov, a man of the past who popped-up at Halle to whitewash Dissmann—the new Noske of the future. And, finally, sitting shyly at the end of the bench among the Rights was Longuet, the French Kautskian. He looked uncomfortable, however, in that company, and his face seemed to say: "If only I could sit between the two sections of the congress. …"
The attitude of the whole Right Wing of the Independents towards Karl Kautsky was most characteristic. As is well known, Kautsky himself was not present at Halle. He, together with his wife, with a well known French social traitor Renaudel, the Belgian social patriot Huysmann, and a couple of other social traitors, were visiting Georgia at that time. Kautsky's absence from the congress apparently was not accidental. The wire-pullers of the Right Wing of the Independents felt that Kautsky was in their way, and they endeavoured to remove him from the scene during the critical period. A short time before the congress at Halle, Hilferding, the "pupil and friend" of Karl Kautsky, purposely mentioned in his paper that Karl Kautsky proposed to transfer his residence to Vienna, hinting that the question of Kautsky's position in the Independent Party has become of lesser importance. Vienna, however, is not far enough from Germany. The "ingenious" pupils of Kautsky came to the conclusion that the old man must be removed farther, for the time being at any rate, and they accordingly despatched him to Tiflis to pay a call on Mr Noah Jordania, the hangman of the Georgian workers.
Being as we are, opponents of the Right Independents, we should not think of regarding this attempt on the part of Hilferding and Co., to establish the "alibi" of Kautsky, as anything else but a trick. We put the question categorically. We reminded them of the numerous pamphlets of Karl Kautsky, in which he extolled the notorious idea of "pure" democracy, in which he threw dirt at the Russian workers and the Russian Workers' Revolution. We reminded them of the commonly known fact that the pamphlets of Karl Kautsky were printed as leading articles in the White Guard press of the Tsarist generals, who were fighting against the Soviet Government. We criticised all the counter-revolutionary tendencies of Karl Kautsky.
It is most interesting to note the reply of the honourable pupils of Karl Kautsky. It is so characteristic of the Right Independents that we shall refer to it on more than one occasion. All the theoretical learning displayed at Halle by Dittmann, Crispien, and Hilferding was borrowed from the pamphlets of Kautsky. Among the so-called ideas of Hilferding, Dittman, Crispien and Co. we can hardly detect a particle that is not borrowed from Kautsky. With regard to ideas they owe everything to Kautsky. None of them, however, dared to own Kautsky as their leader in the presence of the workers' delegates. To all the questions on their attitude to Kautsky no one was able to declare a straight "Yes" or "No." Individual hotheads from the Right benches shouted that they had nothing to do with Kautsky, that Kautsky had no influence on their policy, etc. But the most "responsible" of them kept silent or tried to turn the question off with a jest.
A more blackguardly attitude to one's teacher and theoretical guardian can hardly be imagined. These men are utterly devoid of all conviction.
At the beginning of the Moscow Congress, when Dittmann and Crispien thought that our conditions for entering the Communist International would not be so rigid, and that they would be able to slip into the Third International, both of them, especially Dittmann, often renounced Kautsky in private conversations. They even subtly hinted that, if we came to terms with them, they would go as far as to expel Kautsky from the party. Their lack of principles is so great that each of them is always prepared to betray the other—provided he will thereby consolidate his own position.
There is no doubt whatever now that the Right Independents have seceded and formed a separate party; their theoretical chief will remain Kautsky, the same Karl Kautsky whom Dittmann and Crispien were only the other day prepared to sacrifice and expel from the party. It may be that owing to the great unpopularity of Karl Kautsky among the German workers, the wire-pullers of the new party will try to keep him for the time being behind the scenes, and let him out "" rarely as possible. But there is not the slightest doubt that this famous renegade will still continue to formulate the "theory" of the Right Independents.
Needless to say, the attitude towards Soviet Russia was practically the chief topic of discussion at the Halle Congress. The leaders of the Right Independents made an attempt to split the question: the attitude to Soviet Russia as a distinct question from the attitude to the Third International. The leaders of the Right Independents were ever ready to vow that they were entirely for Soviet Russia, and will "continue to support" it in the future irrespective of whether there is a split in the party or not.
The draft resolution proposed by the Right. Independents states: The Right Independents will of course continue to lend all possible aid to Soviet Russia . . . .
This was said by people who acknowledge men like Dittmann, who made his name in bourgeois circles by his articles against Soviet Russia as their chiefs.
Whence, then, such hypocrisy, whence such double-dealing? There is no doubt that all these Hilferdings, Crispiens, Dittmanns and Co. hate the Bolsheviks from the bottom of their hearts, and secretly yearn (Kautsky did it openly—he wrote a number of times that the Bolshevik regime would fall in a couple of months) for that happy moment when "Democracy" will destroy the Soviet Government in Russia. The thing is easily explained. The workers of Russia, by their great struggle, have won the hearts of the workers of the world. The workers of all countries, including those of Germany, do not allow anyone at their meetings to speak against Soviet Russia. The workers are firmly on our side. Whosoever wishes to win the least confidence from the German workers must at least pretend that he is a friend of Soviet Russia. Even the Scheidemannists pretend to be friends of Soviet Russia. The Right Independents, whose chief watchword is 'keep your nose to the wind," had of course to pretend that they, in spite of everything, are in favour of Soviet Russia.
But the Right Independents were, of course, unable to follow logically their line of conduct. Their outbursts against the "Moscow knout," their accusations against the Lefts at the preliminary discussions displayed the most outspoken jingoism directed precisely against Soviet Russia.
The "Freiheit" tried its best to preserve the decorum of a paper friendly to Soviet Russia. But on Dittmann's arrival from Russia he commenced a series of articles against Soviet Russia. But the "overwhelming" success, which he had in bourgeois and black-hundred circles, at once discredited him in the eyes of the workers. It became impossible for him to show himself at any workers' meeting. The "Freiheit" was boycotted by the working people. Under such circumstances the paper preferred to discontinue the proposed series, after printing two libellous articles. But in spite of the efforts of Hilferding, who as editor of the paper tried to restrain its tendencies, his grip on it became feebler and the paper became more and more anti-Bolshevik. During the congress the "Freiheit" published on the front page in heavy type the manifesto of the Armenian so-called "Labour Party" addressed to the Second International, i.e., to the so-called International Socialist Bureau. In this manifesto the Armenian Scheidemannists, in the name of Armenian "democracy," begged the Second International to protect them from the wicked Bolsheviks, who were alleged to be preparing an attack against the Armenian nation. There is not the slightest doubt that M. Hilferding knows quite well the present role of the so-called Armenian "democracy!" He is well aware that the present bourgeois Armenian government is simply a pawn in the hands of the Allies, that it served as a store agent for munitions for Wrangel, etc. He must have known that the so-called Labour Party of Armenia is a branch of international Scheidemannism. If, in spite of all that, Hilferding chose to print the manifestoes of this Armenian pseudo-Labour Party, it is precisely because the "Freiheit" has become a disreputable anti-Bolshevik rag. All the Right Independents at the Halle Congress were most anxious to make capital out of the question of "upper ranks and lower ranks," which has lately become the question of the day in our party. Martov brought to Halle the Moscow papers, with detailed reports of the discussions at our last All-Russian Party Conference, and articles on this question. Hilferding's paper immediately republished this material, throwing out, of course, everything it deemed unsuitable, and distorting the real meaning. Dittmann "himself" undertook the task of "explaining" that material at public meetings. He quoted with great satisfaction and gusto the articles by Comrade Preobrajensky, published in "Pravda" on the eve of our last All-Russia Party Conference. Dittmann recited with even greater pleasure extracts from my report at our party conference, in which I spoke of some of the dark sides of our party life, and pointed out the prevailing inequalities, etc. Having embellished it all with his own eloquence, Dittmann concluded triumphantly: "Is it not clear to everyone that this means the utter failure of the Bolshevik Party, a complete failure of the idea of centralism?"
I fully analysed this circumstance in my speech. Dittmann's game was soon turned against him. I acknowledged that their were some faults to be found in our party. We are suffering from "seasonable" malady. When we came to power many alien elements joined us. When our best men were sent to the front, things sometimes went badly at home. Yes, we do ruthlessly criticise these darker sides in our organisation. We have done so for the last 25 years, and have fearlessly pointed out the most vulnerable spots in our party organisation. It is just on that account that we have such a powerful party, sound to its core and capable of fulfilling its historic mission. Messrs Dittmann and Crispien were telling fairy tales when they said that we in Russia have a dictatorship that makes it impossible for anybody to say a word of criticism; they said a lot about the "knout," the "quietness of the grave," etc., but they have themselves refuted them! The German workers can see now that we are capable of openly and violently criticising our own party, pointing out its maladies, and healing them as well. I said that I should like to see a leader of the Right Independents who would dare to criticise his own party with the same frankness and boldness. "You, Herr Dittmann, were highly delighted when you could quote that part of my report, made to our All-Russia Party Conference in which I spoke of inequality within the party. Yes, we have not yet done away with all inequalities, and we openly confess it. But we shall do away with them; of that we are sure. Let me ask you, however, is there no inequality in your party? Do the advocates, politicians, and in some cases even bankers, who are here on your side, lead the same life as the workers, here on the Left, who have just left their tools, who have come from the mines and factories?" This part of my speech created a big stir in the hall. The shot had hit its mark. I told the German workers that when they came to power, some alien elements would try to join their party. They would have to take special measures in order to guard their party from the influx of these elements. We were doing the same thing. I added that I was ready to read out those quotations from my speech, which were cited by Dittmann, at any gathering of German workers, and that I was sure the German workers would be on our side. We must, give citizen Martov our most hearty thanks for the failure of the rascally tricks of the Right leaders of the Independents. More than anyone else he was instrumental in bringing this failure about. Before the congress the Right Independents tried to assert that they had nothing in common with the Russian Mensheviks. They asserted this even at the congress. Hilferding protested against my statement that the Right Independents formed part and parcel of international Menshevism. He tried to pour ridicule on my seeing the whole world through Russian spectacles.
Every position, however, has its logic. In fighting the Third International and Soviet Russia, the Right Independents were naturally driven into the arms of Martov. And Martov supported them with all his might, just as the rope supports a hanging man.
Of course, I did not expect anything pleasant from the speech of Martov. I understood that Martov did not go to Halle in order to support the Soviet Government and the Third International, but in order to attack them. We never expected, however, that he would stoop to such meanness as he did. He not only described the "horrors" of the Bolshevik regime, the vile persecutions to which Tchernov had been subjected at the hands of the Soviet Government, and the cruel persecutions of the Mensheviks, etc. This in itself would not have been too bad. But Martov reached such depths of depravity that at Halle, at the International Congress, he supported the Polish bourgeoisie against Soviet Russia, and in an interview published at the time of the congress in the "Freiheit," announced to Millerand and Lloyd George that the peace concluded at Riga between Soviet Russia and Poland was a military trick on the part of Soviet Russia, that it was a temporary armistice, which would be violated by Soviet Russia in the spring.
Martov described in glowing terms the Vladivostock government, and gave the whole world to understand that the setting up of the Far-Eastern Republic as a buffer state between ourselves and Japan was the result of some secret convention, etc.
Martov showed himself a brazen-faced renegade, vilely calumniating the Russian Workers' Revolution in a "black hundred" speech. Some "neutral" people, who up till now treated Martov with a certain degree of confidence, and thought we were too severe in our treatment of him, made the following remark to us: "We expected from Martov anything but such meanness." Part of the Right section was struck by such a reactionary speech. Longuet considered it. his duty to protest openly against the attack on Soviet Russia contained in Martov's speech. But the Dissmann group of the Right and all the Right leaders were simply delighted with the counter-revolutionary outburst of Martov. The faces of these "Right" leaders shone like new pennies, when Martov, excelling himself, passed from one meanness to another. The union between the Right leaders of the Independents and Martov, the counter-revolutionary, was sealed in the presence of the whole congress. This once more convinced the Left majority of the congress of the necessity for a complete break with the Right Independents. Martov, however, discredited the Rights in another way. My chief accusation against the leaders of the Right Independents was: "You gentlemen refuse to believe in an International Labour Revolution; therefore all your schemes are built on the supposition that you are facing, not a revolution, but a long era of peaceful development." I quoted in my speech Crispien's report to the party conference, which took place some three weeks before the congress, soon after Crispien's return from Moscow. He stated definitely in his speech that the present situation in all the countries of Europe is similar to that after the revolution of 1848. He compared the present struggle between the Communists and the Right Independents with the struggle between the Marxians and the "Left" squabblers in the Communist League at the end of the forties of last century. By this declaration he has entirely betrayed himself. Generally speaking we can say of Crispien: what Hilferding has in his mind Crispien is sure to blurt out. Hilferding, Crispien and Co. have absolutely no faith in the future revolutionary development of Europe. They are convinced that the bourgeoisie has got over its main difficulties and that we have now entered on an era of gradual peaceful reform. One could find almost anything in the lengthy speeches made by Crispien and Dittmann at the congress. But there was no mention of the coming world revolution. When I drew the attention of the meeting to that fact, I scored a regular bull's-eye. Our opponents, however, tried to present some lame excuses. Crispien asserted that his comparison, which I had quoted, was used with reference to the state of affairs within the party, not with reference to world-politics in general. By stating this he confused the issue still more—to his disadvantage. The situation within the party is of course closely bound up with the general political situation.
What was the question debated in the Communist League towards the end of the forties? It was whether a new era of revolutionary outbursts in the near future was opening. Marx, taking the general situation into account, came to the conclusion that these outbursts could not be expected in the near future, and he was right in that. If Crispien compares the present dispute with the disputes of that day, he can only mean one thing—that at the present time we cannot expect any revolutionary outbursts.
Crispien and Co., however, tried to prove the contrary. They tried to assure us that they "also" are in favour of a world revolution. Martov tried to help him, but rendered him the worst service. His speeches, apart from base calumnies against our party, mild denunciations of Millerand the imperialist, and adulation for the Polish bourgeoisie, had a so-called general part, in which Martov, with a sincerity worthy of all praise, attacked the "fanaticism" of the masses, the "naive," "religious" faith of the workers in the possibility of introducing Socialism immediately. Martov reverted to this same topic a dozen times. He never stopped complaining, lamenting, and deploring the fact that the labouring masses of our day are so immature, uneducated, raw and primitive, that they believe in miracles, in the possibility of a rapid advent of Socialism. Martov thus put his cards on the table. It became clear to everybody that Martov and those who share his views, Crispien and Dittmann, regard it as their task not to help the working class to bring about Socialism as soon as possible, but that, their task is to persuade the "uncultured," "primitive," and "backward" labouring masses that they must abandon their "fanaticism," their "naive" and "religious" faith in the rapid advent of Socialism. We cannot but express our thanks for the service that Martov has rendered us. It was sufficient merely to point out this part of Martov's speech. It was sufficient to ask all those present: Don't you see that this so-called "naive, religious" faith in the possibility of Socialism is the greatest revolutionary factor in history? No one can doubt that without this so-called "fanaticism" of the masses the workers' revolution and the emancipation of the labouring class are utter impossibilities. Martov expounded a programme which was a direct challenge to the Socialist revolution; it was the open contempt of a renegade, a doctrinaire-intellectual, for the mass struggle of the workers, for the indomitable faith in the victory of labour. Martov spoke as a typical reformist, who knows of no greater foe than the so-called "religious" faith of the labouring masses in the Revolution.
Tell me who are your friends, and I will tell you what you are! Tell me who is your friend in the International arena, and I will tell you what is your own political position! The leaders of the Right. Independents walked arm in arm with Martov, the counter-revolutionary reformist, and that in the sight of the whole world. This will cost them many dozen local organisations, which will now turn away from them even sooner than we could have otherwise expected.
We made the Right Independents speak out, and made them state categorically in what manner their principles differed from those of the Communist International, and the theses which were adopted at the Second Congress of the Communist International. The Right Independents in the persons of Crispien, Dittman, and Hilferding declared that there were four questions on which they disagreed with us in principle, namely: the agrarian, the national terror, and the role of the Soviets. Later on we had little difficulty in proving that all these four divergences could be reduced to one cardinal dissension: the Proletarian World Revolution versus Reformism.
Let us now turn to the divergencies as formulated by the Right Independents themselves. Let us start with the agrarian question. The Right leaders reject the theses of the Second Congress on the grounds that they admit, in certain cases, of the division of big estates into small peasant holdings, and that this is contrary to Marxist principles. Poor Marxism. Marx can only turn in his grave when Crispien, Dittmann, and Hilferding take upon themselves to expound his theories. The arguments of Crispien, the speaker of the Right Independents, was pure Menshevism. We remember very well when our Russian Mensheviks pretended to be a "purely workmen's" party, which did not wish to make the slightest concession to the peasantry, and also when they professed to be the "people's" party, and started to defend the peasants against us at a time when the working class was forced even by compulsory means to make the rich peasants give up their corn.
We see the same here. So long as the working class is not yet in power the German Mensheviks prefer to cover themselves with the cloak of a "genuine” working class party, which demands that no concessions be made to the small peasantry. The Right Independents referred in this question to Seratti, who, it is averred, is also opposed to any concessions to the small peasantry. We had no difficulty in refuting this statement by pointing out that revolutionary events in Italy during the last few weeks have justified our views, not those of Seratti. When in the course of the last few weeks the Italian workers started to seize the works and factories, the small peasantry of Italy started to take possession of the land. And of course only a stupid reformist could deny that such seizure of land was a help to the revolution.
We put this question to Crispien and Co.: "If you do not desire a union with the small peasants at a certain stage of the workers' revolution, what is your attitude to the idea of the necessity of peasants' soviets in time of revolution?" Crispien and Co. answered that in their opinion no peasants' soviets were necessary, and by this statement they once more laid bare their reformist, souls.
The Right Independents seek no allies for the successful carrying out of the proletarian revolution, for the simple reason that they do not for a moment believe in that revolution. This was proved by the objections which the Right Independents made to the theses on the agrarian question.
A specially interesting discussion was raised on the national question. The Enver Pasha affair was made much of. The Right Independents, with a truly Menshevik propensity for slander and insinuation, for several weeks past have been trumpeting all over Germany that Enver Pasha has joined the Third International, and that we fraternised with him at the Baku Congress of Eastern Peoples. This legend was reprinted in nearly all the papers of the world. In the pre-congress electioneering campaign this legend played a very important part. We saw an electioneering leaflet from Frankfort signed by Mrs Tony Sender and some other leaders of the Right Independents, in which it was stated: "Enver Pasha, the executioner of the Armenian people, is admitted into the Third International, but Ledebour the old revolutionary fighter is refused admittance."
We had to start by telling the truth about Enver Pasha's visit to Baku. Enver Pasha, as is well known, was never there as a delegate. He came as a guest. He asked to be allowed to address the congress, and met with a refusal. Then he asked to be allowed to read a declaration, which was read. In this declaration he stated that he and the other representatives of the present Turkish Government are on the side of the Soviet Government, and that they have become convinced that they will find no salvation in alliance with the bourgeoisie of any country.
What did we do in reply to this declaration? Did we receive him with open arms? Not at all. Bela Kun and I moved a resolution, which was carried at the congress, stating most emphatically that "we warn the Turkish people against those leaders who are responsible for the imperialist war, and that we invite these leaders to prove their present, loyalty to the people by deeds and not. by words; that we call on the Turkish workers and peasants to fight not only against the foreign oppressors, but also against their own capitalists. We call on them to organise soviets, where none but the poor could be admitted," etc. From this fact alone the Independents, with a dexterity worthy of the late reactionary journalist, Burenin, and Martov, the Menshevik, wove a legend of our alliance with Enver Pasha and of his joining the Third International. However, this was only a detail. It is very interesting to note the view taken by the Right Independents on the national question as a whole. They affirm that a follower of Marx can have nothing in common with the national movements of oppressed nationalities. What is actually taking place in the East? Ask the philosophical Crispien. They are—so he says—young capitalist countries, which desire to liberate themselves from the influence of old capitalist countries.
Thus, according to Crispien, India. Persia, and China turn out to be "young capitalist countries." This is an obvious fallacy. But Crispien expounded it in all seriousness and with a pretence to scholarship. We had no difficulty in proving how utterly ignorant Crispien and Co. were on this question.
We said:
"There can be no world revolution without a rebellion, an awakening of Asia. Only then can we count on a European revolution." We pointed out that only the Third International could inspire boundless confidence in the nations of the East in the shortest space of time. We pointed out the present attitude of the Right Independents towards the movements of Eastern nations is in reality a continuation of the policy of the Second International. That sublime contempt which was poured on the "Mullahs from Khiva" by gentlemen like Hilferding, proves the petty bourgeois conceit and stupidity of the "European" reformists, who are incapable of understanding the revolutionary part which the awakening of Asia is destined to play. We had no difficulty in proving that the Right Independents are incapable of understanding the movement of emancipation among the Eastern nations as a factor in the proletarian revolution, precisely because to them the world revolution itself is only an empty sound and a meaningless symbol.
With regard to 'Terror, Crispien and Co., following in the footsteps of Kautsky, attempted to make a "scientific" distinction between "terror" and "violence." "We recognise Violence (stated Crispien), but under no circumstances Terror.” We answered that Terror is only the most extreme form of "Violence," just as civil war is the most extreme form of the class struggle. Further, we adduced instances from the Russian and the Finnish revolutions. We reminded them of that rosy dawn of the workers' revolution in Russia—the first days of the October revolution—when we liberated Krassnov from the Smolny upon his word of honour, when we released Kerensky's minister's who afterwards organised civil war against us which cost us the lives of ten of thousands of our comrades. We reminded them how the intervention of the Allies gradually forced us to apply Terror as the extremest form of self-defence. We cited the resolution of the Eighth Council of the Social-Revolutionist Party (Dittman in his articles and reports defended Chernov) which at the time of the Czecho-Slovak revolt called on the Allies to send troops into Soviet Russia. We reminded them of the instance of the Finnish revolution, when the Finnish workers, after taking over the government were so naive as to liberate all the deputies of the Diet and the bourgeois ministers. The latter went to Berlin, hired cut-throat white guards of the Kaizer and then killed some 30,000 Finnish workers. We also hinted to the German workers, that their owe German experience, and first and foremost the treatment of their best leaders—Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg, at the hands of the White Guards, are in themselves positive proof that the petty bourgeois views on terror are utterly false.
This part of my speech was specially welcomed by the overwhelming majority oi the congress. The German workers understood the motive of my words. But this part of my speech—as was shown by future events—united the whole of reactionary Germany against me—from the "Orgesch" organisation to the Right leaders of the Independents. The bourgeoisie and the "Social Democracy" started an unprecedented and savage campaign against me, precisely for uttering these words. These words of mine were represented as a blood-thirsty appeal after the style of Nero, an appeal for immediate massacre of all the bourgeoisie, etc.
Finally, Crispien formulated his view with regard to the "Soviet System" as follows:
Firstly: Only intelligent working men must be admitted to the Soviets—reactionary working men such as Christian Socialists, etc., must be excluded from the Soviets. Secondly: no party must pretend to guide the Soviets. Such guidance leads not to the dictatorship of the workers but to the dictatorship over the workers. We had no difficulty in proving that both his statements were reactionary. The Soviets are important to us, precisely because we can attract the backward workers to them. We said the Soviets are the best universities where the backward labouring masses can best outlive their lack of faith in the proletarian revolution. All the workers must be admitted to the Soviets. And for that reason that, the party must possess its own organisation within the Soviets in order to guide all the Soviets.
The first to speak on the chief question of the day was Crispien, the second was Daumig, the third Dittmann, and the fourth Stocker. Then I was allowed to speak. Dittmann's gang was only waiting for an opportunity to shout, me down. This opportunity came very soon. When I analysed the part played by the Yellow leaders of the Amsterdam Trade Union International, I stated that some of the yellow leaders were far more repulsive and far more dangerous to the working class than the outspoken white guards of the "Orgesch" organisation. At this statement Dissmann and Co. attempted to create an uproar, to show how deeply I offended their assumed dignity. They said that I insulted 28 million Trade Union members. Dittmann pathetically brandished his membership card, crying that he had been a member of a trade union for the last 22 years, and that he would not allow trade unions to be insulted, etc. However, these gentlemen did not succeed in shouting me down. The speakers of the Left Independents at the pre-congress debates allowed themselves unfortunately to be driven to the defensive. In my speech, of course, I at once assumed the offensive. Crispien dubbed the Left Independents—"disguised Communists" (verkappte Kommunisten). Crispien and Co. attempted to prove in their speches that the Left Independents are in fact Communists, but do not dare to own themselves as such. The whole of the Left Wing of the Congress met my words with a storm of cheering when I said that we on this side are not disguised but open Communists. I then asked Crispien and Co., "If you are such irreconcilable enemies of Communism, who do you seek to enter the Communist International, what do you expect to find there?"
And the Congress gave a hearty cheer. At first the Right, did not give up all hope of shouting me down. But after a short time I compelled them to listen to me. There were so many questions with which I had to deal, that I had to speak fог four and a half hours at a stretch—the longest, speech I have ever made.
After the first half hour the whole Right, was sitting in absolute silence and listening with intense interest. Even Ledebour, who is famous for his habit of interrupting his opponent every five minutes, was sitting quietly and listening in wrapt attention. In the end even some of the Rights themselves asked me to shed some light on this or that topic, to which I had not yet referred in my speech. The chief purpose of my speech was to prove that, the Right does not believe, does not wish to believe in a proletarian world revolution, holding a reformist view on evolution, and frames its tactics accordingly. "You disagree with us not because 21 conditions have been substituted for 18, but because we are revolutionists and you are reformists!" That was the gist of my speech. Of course I had to dwell minutely on the conditions of entry into the Communist International, i.e., on the question which the Right Independents on the eve of the Congress tried to make the central topic of the dispute. A special sensation was caused in the ranks of the Rights by my declaration in the name of the Executive Committee, which was as follows: "You say that the 21 conditions are inacceptable to you? Well,—you are within your rights. But we demand you in the name of the Executive Committee to write down in definite and clear terms which of our theses and conditions you consider inacceptable, and which of them you regard as wrong. State definitely and clearly in writing what conditions of entry into the Communist International you regard as acceptable? Do not limit yourselves to vague sentences about "autonomy," national independence, etc. Show your cards! Tell the whole world in what particulars the decisions of the Second Congress of the Communist. International are inacceptable to you." This statement hit the leaders of the Right Independents in their weakest spot. They became agitated, and started to shout that this was mean demagogy (Bauernfangerei) on my part. I once more dealt with this question in detail and easily demonstated that there is no demagogy in requesting a party, which wishes to enter the Communist International (on conditions other than those worked out by the Second Congress of the Communist International) to state definitely—what are the conditions of that party. This cut the leaders of the Right Independents to the quick—for their faction was brought together with great difficulty on the platform of a general disapproval of the abolition of all autonomy, etc. Hilferding and Co. were fully aware that if they were to set down the conditions on which they would consent to enter the Communist International, they would immediately lose a considerable part of their faction.
I spoke of course of the Rusian revolution, and of conditions in Soviet Russia. In this part of my speech, I believe I inflicted the greatest moral defeat on our opponents. I said at the Congress: "Think of it, three years we have been at war with the bourgeois governments of the whole world. No fewer than 18 bourgeois governments have declared war on us during that period. What did your Dittmann do? Imagine the workmen of some town, which for a month, two months or three months has been striking against, the bourgeoisie. No help is forthcoming from anywhere. The enemy is stubborn and crafty. The last supplies have been consumed. The houses are cold and cheerless. The workers' children are hungry and ill-clad. At such a time there arrives on the scene a stranger, a dandy like Dittmann, sees all the misery and hardships, which a striking worker has to undergo, and says: "Oh, I don't like this at all." And then the dandy goes away and tells the whole world of the evils of strikes. Would such a man be in any way better than the vilest blackleg? And what is the difference between such a dandy and Dittmann?
I spoke of the hardships and privations which have been the lot of the Russian workers during the last three years. The audience listened with the warmest fraternal sympathy.
The moral victory of the Communist International over its enemy was beyond doubt. The Left Wing at the Congress and the numerous working men in the gallery celebrated their victory and stormily expressed their delight. After the end of my speech the Rights at first sat speechless, then they rose and stealthily sneaked away from the hall. At the same time some individual workers' delegates, who were sitting on the Right side, approached us and stated that they would cross over to us. Adolf Hoffmann introduced me to a young lady-teacher—whose name was Bock, if I am not mistaken. She declared with tears in her eyes, that up till now she had been hesitating, but that now she will come over to our side. Our comrades told us that many workers walked up to Crispien and Dittman, and said to them angrily: "What lies you were telling of them (meaning us—the Russian Bolsheviks)! Some of the Right delegates were clearly inclined in our favour.
Brass, the chairman of the Lefts, who had many friends in the Right section, assured us that evening that after my speech the Right section had a sitting in two distinct groups. True, these groups were afterwards reunited by the efforts of the Rights' leaders, but a certain cleavage remained none the less. The Left increased not only in numbers but also in moral strength. It became more united, and more deeply felt the righteousness of our cause. That night the Communist International brought about the complete transformation of the Left section of the Independent party into a Communist Party. The same night also witnessed the disintegration of the newly-formed party of the Rights Independents. A new Left wing was immediately formed. Ludwig Wurm, and some others, were named as the leaders of this Left Wing of the Right. If we had made certain concessions we could possibly have gained that wavering Left wing of the Rights on to our side. But we preferred not to do it. Let these vacillating elements remain in the party of the Right Independents. Our party must be as firm as a rock, as hard as stone—and such it will remain.
The highest praise was bestowed on my speech by my opponents. The local bourgeois papers wrote that the speech had a "demonaic" effect on the Congress. This description of my speech was written in all the bourgeois papers. All the central organs of the bourgeoisie which appear in Berlin (by that time the strike was over and the papers began to appear( such as the "Berliner Tagesblatt," "Deutsche Tageszeitung," "Vossische Zeitung" and others, gave the most flattering accounts of the oratorical merits of the speech. "Vorwarts," the organ of Scheidemann, described the speech as "first rate." "Freiheit," the organ of the Left Independents, called it superficially brilliant. "Leipsiger Volkszeitung." the extreme Right paper of the Right Independents, was generous enough to declare that they must do to their opponent, who, they say, is "the first orator of our century." The correspondent of a Finnish conservative paper telegraphed to the Finnish press that I "hypnotised" the congress. In fact there was too much praise. But at the same time a most ruthless campaign was being prepared as a retaliation for the tendency or my speech. I shall deal with this later on, however. The decisive moment of the Congress at last arrived. The voting on the principal question gave us an almost two to one majority. Thereupon, Crispien rose and made a declaration, which is a specimen of his impertinence, stupidity, and impotence. Crispien declared in the name of the Central Committee of the old body (by the way, to this meeting of the Central Committee of the old body none оf the Left members were invited, though they formed nearly half of the Central Committee) that by carrying such a motion the Congress was practically deciding to enter another party, i.e., the Spartacus League. And since, he said, by the rules of the Independent Party no member of the party can be simultaneously a member of another party, the majority of the Congress have thereby placed themselves outside of the party. On that ground the Central Committee of the old body declares the whole of the Left section outside the party. The Rights were invited to leave the hall of the Congress, and they went to another place to continue the work of the Congress.
This declaration caused a storm of indignation on the part of the Left majority of the Congress. The gallery filled with workers was in a special uproar. The workers shook their fists at Crispien and Co. Had our Left friends not done all in their power to restrain the crowd, there would certainly have been a free fight. Crispien's declaration suited us perfectly. In fact, we could not have wished for anything better. Think of it! These men had shouted to the whole of Europe of their fidelity to the principle of democracy within the party, these men had vowed right and left that their only reason for not joining the Third International was because the latter desired to violate some presumed interests of the German party, these men accused us of heresies, and bewailed the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks. And after all, when the Congress was called together on their own initiative, under rules which they themselves worked out, after they themselves recognised the validity of all the mandates, when the Central Committee, by all laws human and divine, ceased to exist (the Central Committee in fact represents the party only when no congress is sitting; but during the Congress the latter body has all power vested in it)—after all that, some person rises to speak in the name of six members of "the Central Committee and states that he declares the majority of the party outside the party! One can hardly imagine a greater contempt for the principles of democracy within the party, or a greater betrayal. Now every rank and file worker, whom Crispien and Co. used to catch by professing that they defended autonomy, which they said was being attacked, will understand this simple and clear fact: when the overwhelming majority of the party asserted their will, the party bureaucracy (which remained in the minority at the Congress) prevented this decision from being carried out, left the Congress and seized the editorial offices, the clubs, the party funds, using the bourgeois police and law courts for their purpose. By these actions the Right Independents have destroyed the last remnants of confidence still placed in them by a part of the workers.
I shall long remember the moment when the Right section of the Congress left the Congress. The workers who filled the gallery were shaking their fists at the retiring Rights and cursing them. The Lefts were enthusiastically singing "The International." Some of the Rights walked off with downcast eyes; others arrogantly and impudently stared at the majority of the Congress. These retiring gentlemen are Dissman's gang of cut-throats, the future Noskes of greater and less importance. Some of us felt like shaking our fists at them too. The Right have gone. We have got rid of the agents of capital; now we are just one family. The atmosphere has become clear. The proceedings of the Congress continue. A new, possibly the most important leaf has been turned in the history of Germany and of the world. Nunc demissis! At any rate, the enemies of the proletarian revolution will no longer be in our own house. How vividly this reminded us of our break with the Mensheviks! The same social make-up, the same arguments, the same anger written on the faces of the intellectuals driven out by the workers from the proletarian party, the same contemptuous gestures. Let us hope that the results will be the same as well. The workers' party in Germany will be strengthened, the petty bourgeois intellectuals who pretend to be Socialists will be crushed. A part will join the bourgeoisie, the other—the better part—will after a time return to its paternal home.
Whatever else may be said, the German workers are the first in Europe to have recovered from an unparalleled crisis, and to close their ranks. The discipline of the old school proved effective. The work of the best German revolutionaries was not done in vain. A Communist party has been born in Germany and is leading the masses. This will involve consequences of the greatest historical importance.
The split occurred on Saturday night. Late the same night we left for Berlin. A meeting was arranged in one of the largest halls of the city. I was to speak on the "Truth about Soviet Russia." A few days previously this meeting was authorised by the authorities. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak at. that meeting. I caught a chill in Halle, and was so hoarse, that I could hardly utter a single word. I got up with a heightened temperature, and at first we decided that I should not go out at all, as I was in any case unable to speak. Other speakers were selected to take my place at the meeting. But half an hour after the beginning of the meeting a group of workers arrived from the meeting with an insistent request that I should at least "show myself" at the meeting. It was impossible to refuse them, and although I felt very ill, I had to go.
During the three years of our revolution I saw a good many imposing labour meetings, but I have rarely been at a meeting like the one which took place in the "Neue Welt." The huge hall was absolutely packed, the galleries were also full, the whole place was like a solid human mass. When we arrived Mayer was reading his report; the president interrupted him, announced my arrival, and lead me to the platform. Thundering cheers continued for a long time. I never in my whole life more regretted my Inability to speak, than I did at that moment. So majestic and pawerful was that out-and-out labour assembly, so fraternal did its feelings go out to us, that I can scarcely express now the sentiments of deep sympathy to the audience which then animated me. The unusual role of a silent orator could not be very pleasant for me. But the warm wave of brotherly sympathy, which emanated from the hall, was so extraordinary, that I shall long preserve in my heart the memory of that moment.
Whilst being driven to the meeting, some comrades pointed out to me red notices exhibited in all the streets, many of which were pasted over the placards announcing my meeting. These were notices issued by the Anti-Bolshevik League. They contained the most unmistakable threats directed against me. Near the place of the meeting some fellows were distributing appeals directed against me, in which the refrain of Martov's speech—"the butcherer of the Mensheviks" was quoted. It was explained at the same meeting that the Russian Mensheviks are the same as the Right Independents and the members of the Social Democratic Party in Germany.
Here is the text and the translation of the appeal which was distributed in Berlin on October 16-17, 1920.
"Sonntag, den 17, Oktober 1920 halb 10 Uhr spricht in der Hasenheide. SINOWJEW, der Menschewiki-Schlachter. (Menschewiki entsprechen der U.S.P.D. rechter Flugel und S.P.D.) Deutsche Arbeiter, erscheint in Massen, um den Morder Eurer proletarischen russischen Bruder zu begrussen."
The translation reads as follows:—"On Sunday, October 17, 1920, at 9.30 a.m. in "Hasenheide," a speech will be delivered by Zinoviev, the Butcher of the Mensheviks (Mensheviks correspond to the right Wing of the Independent Party and the Social Democratic Party of Germany). German workers, some in thousands to greet the murderer of your brothers, the Russian workers."
The men who attempted to distribute these leaflets were soundly thrashed.
············
My comrades and I were soon compelled to leave the meeting, as I felt worse.
I had scarcely time to reach hime when three representatives of the "political police" entered my room and announced that they had received orders to take me immediately to the police presidium. A doctor who attended me and was present at the time, protested against my being taken away on account of my illness, they started long arguments on the telephone. The representative of the Soviet Government in Berlin intervened in the matter. Kurt Rosenfeld also arrived on the scene. He is a lawyer who took part in the negotiations concerning my permission to enter Germany, and is a member of the Central Committee oi the Right Independents. Two sentries were all the time standing at my door. Finally they succeeded in securing the abandonment of the demand for my appearance at the police presidium, and the decision which they had to announce was to be communicated to me personally at home.
This decision was announced to me by a pompous Social-Democratic commissary. He was very polite and solemn in his manners. He seemed to be performing a religious ceremony, trying not to omit any formalities. He began by asking how old I was, whether I could read and write, etc.
The decision practically came to this. I was regarded as a lastiger Auslander (undesirable alien)—this classical term was inherited by the German Republic from William the Bloody. I was forbidden to appear at any meeting or even go out of my room to speak on the telephone, or to grant any interviews. But I was not forbidden to receive visitors. A considerable discussion was caused by the question of how I was to visit the lavatory. At first the functionary, who acted in the name of the police presidium, insisted that each time I was to go there I must specially inform the "officer" (this was the polite term used to denote spies): and only after the latter's sanction could I proceed there. Later on the commissary who conducted these negotiations (I was told he was a Social Democrat) gathered sufficient courage to say: "After all, one must be a fatalist; I will take the whole matter on my own responsibility" (Auf meine eigene koppe). I could go to the lavatory "solo," i.e., in "revolutionary" fashion, without giving previous notice to the spy in question. This "commissary" seemed to be honestly convinced that he was thereby doing a revolutionary act. I had the alternative of either refusing to submit to these orders and declaring that I place myself under the protection of the Berlin workers, thereby causing a general strike in Berlin, which would undoubtedly have followed the very next day—or of refraining for the time being from causing a conflict, and submitting to brute force. After consulting my friends, I chose the latter alternative. Two considerations prompted me to do so. First, I did not want at the moment when the party was not yet organised that it should have a conflict over me, which could easily grow into a most formidable encounter. Secondly, I had made in Berlin a series of appointments with representatives of over ten Communist parties of various countries, and I hoped (this hope was fully justified) that, in spite of all, I would be able to see them.
Only the night previously—at Halle—I was under the protection of the law. This morning I am subjected to a domiciliary arrest, and guarded by a dozen detectives, who were placed in the street, at the entrance, on the stairway, etc. I had only one consolation: I was told most of these spies were Scheidemannists, i.e., members of the Second International. This is surely flattering for a Communist rebel. The whole German press, as if it had acted on a signal, let loose the most rabid attacks on me. The press seemed to run amok, and remained in this state for a whole week. The whole press, from "Freiheit," the organ of the Right Independents, to "Deutsche Tageszeitung," the organ of the reactionary bandits and the "Orgesh," concentrated on that part of my speech on terror, to which I referred above. All the accusations which Martov made against the Bolsheviks generally, and against myself in particular, were reprinted on the front pages of all the reactionary and bourgeois papers. The bourgeois papers yelled that it was not enough to expel me, that my place was not in the hotel under the protection of officers of the political police, but that my place was on the lamp-post. The "Deutsche Tageszeitung" openly incited to murder. The atmosphere became very stormy. It was exactly like the July days of 1917 in Petrograd. The only topic of conversation in the streets, in the trams, in the papers and in the theatres was the cursed "despot" and "dictator" who had come to Germany to advocate the wholesale murder of the bourgeoisie. The leaflets of the Russian White Guards, issued in Berlin, added fuel to the fire. The "facts" reported by Martov were seized upon greedily and were still more exaggerated and distorted. The whole German press was one ferocious counter-revolutionary howl against me.
The local comrades assured me that the persecution was similar to, if not greater than that which was directed against Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxembourg in the January days of 1919. Only the "Rote Fahne," the paper of the German Communists boldly opposed the savage attacks of the counter-revolutionaries, maddened by hatred and fear. The effect, of my speech in labour circles, where it was thoroughly discussed the very day after it was delivered, made the enemies of the proletarian revolution realise in dead earnest the spectre of Communism. There was no limit to the wrath and hatred, the dirt and calumnies which filled the pages of the whole German press.
Our German friends found if necessary to take their own measures of precaution. They doubled their watch in the street where our hotel was situated, sent a number of trusty comrades as guests to that hotel, and took other measures for armed defence in case a direct attack was made upon us.
Certain measures of defence were taken by the German workers even in Halle. We were inclined to chaff them for these precautions, and thought that our friends went too far in their fears. Once in Halle I entered my room on the fourth floor and saw a mysterious wire sticking out of the wall. My friends told me in confidence that this wire communicated with the street, and that in case of danger they could pull it in the street, and then an alarm bell would warn me of impending danger. This, of course, was a naive measure of precaution. But those taken in Berlin were perhaps far from superfluous. We have never since July 1917 witnessed such a wild orgy of madness.
Germany exhibited in those days instances of incredible lying about Soviet Russia. True, we have somehow grown accustomed to the absence of the so-called "liberty of the press." "The liberty of the press" in the happy, "free" German Republic means the following. It you take Berlin, for instance, it means that bankers, generals, and manufacturers edit thirty-four big dailies. The workers, even if you count as workingmen's papers the organs of Scheidemann and Hilferding, possess only three daily papers. In fact we have only one genuine labour paper in Berlin—"Rote Fahne," the Communist organ. "The liberty of the press" in Germany means that workers are left without their paper, and that all the best printing machines are working for the bourgeoisie.
During the last few weeks the bourgeoisie of the whole world has opened an even more violent campaign of calumny against Soviet Russia. It is clear now that this was part of the military plan of the Allies who backed Baron Wrangel. But this campaign of calumny became a fine art in Germany in connection with our arrival there.
Sometimes we ask ourselves why people lied every day for three years running. Surely no one believes them! But in reality this is not so. A man who every day reads a cleverly propagated lie, ends by involuntary falling under its influence. Take, for instance, our delegates. Of course, we were fully aware that the bourgeois press tells lies about Soviet Russia. We spent only a few days in Germany. And still, when we read in all the papers "extracts" from the Moscow "Pravda" (they afterwards turned out to be false) on this or that event at the front, we involuntary inclined to think that there must be a particle of truth in them.
The forgers of the bourgeois press perform their work artistically. The bourgeois papers very cleverly forged the famous "passage" from the Moscow "Pravda" concerning Comrade Budenny's alleged treachery and alliance with the Whites. They do the same in all instances.
Of course the workers place no faith in the bourgeois press. They know that the bourgeois press is lying about Soviet Russia. But still we must, not delude ourselves. The bourgeoisie is most adept and even talented in using the "liberty of the press," that principal weapon which still remains in its hands. One of our chief tasks abroad must be to organise a daily and methodical means of information to keep the workers in touch with everything that is taking place in Russia.
After a couple of days the session of the German Reichstag was opened. The Right Independents made an interpellation concerning the expulsion of myself and Comrade Losovsky. The faction of the Left Independents and the Communists was not able to do this owing to the fact that they could not gather the required number of signatures. The Right Independents, seeing that they had gone too far in their persecution, decided to make up for it by making a pious protest, in the form of an interpolation in the Reichstag.
The question was asked and became the topic of a most interesting political discussion, which portrayed very accurately the features of each of the parties. The discussion of this question lasted a whole day. For two days all the papers were full of reports of parliamentary debates, nicknamed "Bolshevist debates." The interpellation of the Right Independents was made by Rosenfeld and Ledebour, the former from the juridical, the latter from the political standpoint. It is in this speech that Ledebour uttered his disgraceful words about the alleged Central Commission of the German Communists for the "organisation of murder."
The speech by the Scheidemannist was also of interest. The parliamentary faction of the Social Democrats appointed Edward Bernstein as their spokesman on this matter. The old opportunist sinner took on himself this dirty work. Bernstein spoke against the Right Independents, i.e., against, their proposal to interpolate the government. He said: we want to see Germany a free Republic, we are in favour of the right of asylum to foreigners, but … this right of asylum should be given to the oppressed, not to the oppressors. And since the representative of the Communist International is an oppressor, he should be expelled from Germany. But his case should be distinguished from that of Martov, who is a representative of the persecuted.
All the White Guards fully endorsed that point of view, as expressed by Bernstein the Social Democrat. Both the representatives of the Black Hundred "Orgesch," who were present in the German Reichstag, and the reactionary Nationalist deputy, Wulle, who shouted that I must be hanged on the lamppost, immediately adopted the standpoint advocated by Bernstein. All the bankers, landowners, and reactionary generals, who now rule the German Reichstag, immediately fell in with the view advanced by Bernstein, mainly that Martov is the victim, and 1 the sinful oppressor. Martov was immediately taken under the august protection of the Black Hundred majority of the German Reichstag. My expulsion was sanctioned by the same majority.
Bernstein said: "We must have the right of asylum; to give refuge to a foreigner is a sacred duty. In my free, beloved German Republic the right of asylum must certainly exist.. Otherwise there is no democracy. But … (and here begins this little "but") this right of asylum must exist for those who are oppressed, not for the oppressors. This Zinoviev fellow who has arrived from Petrograd is an oppressor. But my venerable friend Martov is quite on a different footing—he is the oppressed, persecuted by Zinoviev and the Bolshevik patty; we must give him hospitality."
The whole bourgeois parliament got up and cheered Bernstein, the father of all the Opportunists. They all reiterated: "That is right, we fully agree with it! We shall grant Martov the right of asylum, he is a persecuted man."
We can ask ourselves, what reward did these people deserve, since they succeeded so thoroughly in opening the eyes of the people. What else could we wish for? The White Guards of Germany, all the bourgeois, and the landowning parties, all the reactionary groups of Germany, get up, tenderly squeeze Martov's hand, and say: "Our dear persecuted friend, come with us, we shall protect you; as to the representative of the Petrograd and the other workers of Russia—he is an oppressor."
Truly a sight for the gods. We hardly need better propaganda. What could be clearer and more instructive than Martov walking arm in arm with Wulle and white-guard officers with those who protected the murderer of Karl Liebknecht. And the whole chorus singing concert, "We are the oppressed!" the thing could never be made clearer than that. If the German bourgeoisie says, "Martov is our man, let us embrace him," they surely know what they are about. And, indeed, the Mensheviks are bound to fall on the neck of the European bourgeoisie. A bird will always espy his mate at a distance.
A short time before my arrival in Berlin a conference of Russian White Guards took place there. They were ex-merchants, bankers, the rag-tag of the bourgeoisie, lawyers, who are now there, because they are no longer wanted in Russia, etc. It is said that, there are some 200,000 of them in Berlin. They all regard themselves as "oppressed" since they can no longer stay in Petrograd as the exploiters of the workers. They called a conference and worked out "theses." It is very important that we acquaint ourselves with "theses," which we shall publish. The Berlin White Guards admit that the Soviet Government cannot be overthrown by sheer force of arms; the more white armies sent out the worse becomes the state of affairs. No, they must agitate. All these bankers are now rapidly reforming their ranks, and wish to become agitators. They say, we must agitate so as to emphasise the food question, the bread monopoly. We must appeal to the workers, and point out to them that the Bolsheviks have made slaves of them, that the workers are now forcibly chained to the factories; we must show the peasants that, horses are taken away from them, etc. If we had read the above without looking at the title of the appeal, without knowing who drew them up, we could easily have believed that, these "theses" had been worked out by the Mensheviks of Petrograd or Moscow—Martov, Dan and Co. In fact, they were put forward by Gutchkov, former Tsarist ministers, writers in the "Novoye Vremya," in fact all the White Guard rabble which has gathered in Berlin. We do not know who prompted them—Martov, Gutchkov, former or vice versa. But let us return to the debates in the Reichstag.
Comrade Koennen spoke on this question on behalf of the Left. Independents. He welcomed the presence of the representative of the Communist International on German territory, and expressed the hope that the time will soon come when no one in Germany will dare to attack a representative of the Communist International. In answer to the wild roar of the reactionary guns, Koennen retorted: "Your hoarse barking will not reach the feet of the man at whom you are barking." At these words an incredible uproar ensued in that respectable parliament. The Rights left the hall as a sign of protest. The Social Democrats remained, but began to yell at our comrades. Paul Levi was refused permission to address the house.
In his final address Ledebour, the mover of the interpollation, argued not against the reactionaries, but against us and the Left Independents, earning the praises of the whole bourgeois gang.
We really need not regret what took place. The interpollation and the debate which followed gave all the German workers most instructive matter for consideration. The day after the interpollation was made even the "Vorwarts" of Scheidemann was bound to admit mournfully in its leading article that the persecution directed against Comrade Losovsky and myself could only raise the prestige of Bolshevism. Simons, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, seemed to be against expulsion. Answering a question in the Reichstag, he tried to be polite and showed his correct manners by deploring the fact that owing to the expulsion of Losovsky and myself the relations existing between Germany and Soviet Russia would be somewhat prejudiced. As for my sins, he accused me only of framing my speech in a way that brought it very close to what constitutes a crime against the German laws and is punishable on German territory. The Chief of the Press Department, whom Simons had sent to Halle to report on my speech, gave his opinion that this speech was an open appeal to overthrow the existing government. Koennen in reply to this read a long quotation from my speech on terror, which caused new outbursts of rage on the part of the bourgeoisie.
The persons primarily responsible for our deportation were the Prussian Minister for Home Affairs, Severing, a social democrat, and the Berlin Police President, Richter, also a social democrat. In strict law this was the concern only of the Prussian government, but in fact the question was discussed at a joint sitting of the All-German and Prussian cabinets. Bourgeois organisations handed in special petitions demanding my expulsion. But the initiative was taken, so they say, by Koch, the Minister for Justice, a democrat, and of course by the social democrats, Severing and Richter. In my farewell address to the German workers I expressed my hearty thanks to the social democrats, Severing and Richter, for giving such splendid confirmation to my words at Halle, when I said that some yellow trade union leaders (both Severing and Richter happen to be old trade union bureaucrats) are far more noxious and meaner than even the White Guards of the "Orgesch." I did not want to be indebted to them, and consider that by my expression of thanks we have fully repaid all that "Comrades" Severing and Richter have done for us. …
The first steamer that was leaving Stettin for Russia was to sail on October 23. The German authorities were perforce obliged to reconcile themselves to our stay in Germany until that date. The "comrades" of the police presidium, however, continued to manifest increased nervousness on that account. In October 21 at 6 a.m. I was awakened in my room by a stout and very respectable looking gentleman. He turned out to be a new police commissary, hitherto unknown to me, and he was also of "social democratic" extraction. This respectable "comrade" told me briefly that orders had been received to send me by the first train—at 9 a.m.—to Stettin, contrary to the promise made by "comrade" Severing, the Prussian Minister for Home Affairs. This was too much. Our comrades were especially indignant at the fact that Comrade Losovsky and I were to travel in a slow train, stopping at every little station. Our comrades saw in this (I don't know whether they were justified or not) an attempt to create the chance for all sorts of nasty tricks being perpetrated against us at some little station. Thanks to the intervention of Rosenfeld, this order was withdrawn, and I was graciously allowed to remain in Berlin until October 23 and then proceed to Stettin (of course under the vigilant escort of detectives) by a fast train. "Comrade" Severing complained at the same time that the measures adopted by the detectives were taken without consulting him, and against his wishes. Early on the 23rd my comrades and I left Berlin. The station was filled with detectives. The old inhabitants of Berlin who had seen sights assured me that the detectives have never before been mobilised in such numbers. The same at the Stettin station, soldiers everywhere, detectives walking among them and pointing out to them myself and Losovsky, obviously desirous of making themselves as unpleasant to us. as possible. Thanks to Comrades Adolf Hoffmann and Paul Levi who accompanied us to Stettin with a number of other comrades, everything went off comparatively smoothly. At the last minute the harbour police tried to make themselves still more objectionable. Thanks again to the intervention of Adolf Hoffmann everything passed off well on this occasion also. The steamer is leaving the shore. The workers and sailors who wanted to accompany us had to stay at home. We ourselves asked them to do so in order not to cause a collision with the "Orgesch." Only a few groups of workers and sailors gathered in the harbour. At the last minute they could no longer restrain themselves. We heard them singing the "International." In Swinemunde (four hours from Stettin) a special police boat approached our steamer to ascertain whether we were really leaving Germany. This was the last we saw of the representatives of the German Government.
For six days I was kept under arrest in my room, guarded by my dear "comrades" the detectives, the envoys of my "comrades," Severing and Richter. The time, however, was not lost. I was allowed to receive visitors, and made a sufficiently wide use of that privilege. Perhaps I never before received such a large number of comrades as I did in those days of involuntary leisure. I was visited during this period by representatives of the Communist and Socialist parties of France. Italy, Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg. Switzerland, Bulgaria, and Holland. Some of the delegations consisted of four or five persons, and I had to have a detailed conversation with each delegation. It was a kind of international conference. Apart from that I was constantly visited by the German comrades of the K.P.D. (German Communist Party), the U.S.P.D. (the Left Independents), and the K.A.P.D. (the German Communist Labour Party). Several joint sittings of the two Central Committees of the K.P.D., our U.S.P.D., took place in my room. The time was not lost, and for this I could express once more my hearty thanks to Comrades Severing and Richter.
I was scarcely able to observe German life. I could obtain fleeting impressions only. First impressions of railway stations and streets, which seemed fairly lively, incomparably livelier than in Petrograd or any other part of Soviet Russia. When looking closer, however, to see who forms this animated crowd, we clearly perceive one and the same thing everywhere; it is only a small class of profiteers, rich men, their mistresses, retainers and flunkeys; children are hardly noticeable in the streets, especially the children of the workers. The workers have sallow complexions and look sick. Wild luxury reigns in the streets, excellent shops, packed with goods but where no working man can afford to buy anything. Free trade and profiteering also flourishes in the working men’s districts, but there are no respectable shops there, and a whole street possesses only one wretched miserable shop. This is easily explained—in workers' districts there is no one who can afford to buy things.
At the Parteitag I asked many workers how a working man lives in Germany at the present time: worse or better than before the war? The general answer was, undoubtedly worse than before the war. The average earnings of a working man are now 250 marks a week, there are some who earn only 220–230 marks a week. Prices are enormous. There can be no question of buying meat. They do not get sufficient bread. The State distribution of necessaries is almost reduced to naught owing to the influence of profiteers. In Germany every bourgeois has now the unlimited right to "speculate," to sweat the workers, and the workers have an equally unlimited right—to starve. Comrades told me that the workers cannot obtain clothing, shirts, that their linen is worn out, they cannot obtain clothing for their children; the housing conditions, especially in big cities, are terrible. Unemployment increases daily, extending now to hundreds of thousands of people. Those workers who have not lost their employment altogether mostly work only three days a week, and consequently obtain half the salary mentioned above.
The movement of the unemployed is increasing daily. So far the government has not ventured to adopt repressive measures, but of late it is obviously preparing for them. On Sunday when we were in Berlin at the "Neue Welt," there was a small but gruesome demonstration of blind people—men and women numbering several hundreds. Imagine two hundred soldiers of the Reichswehr and police armed to the teeth surrounding this crowd and arresting and beating those taking part in the demonstration! An old sick woman who was carrying a little flag with the inscription: "We demand attention for the blind," and was arrested on the spot and the flag was roughly wrested out of her hand.
The first thing that strikes one in modern Germany is the absence of any uniform system. You cannot state definitely which political system is now prevalent in Germany. What is Germany at the present time? Is it a Republic? If so, what republic—a bourgeois, a proletarian, or a republic dominated by generals? Or, do we witness here some peculiar relics of the old monarchy? Even now I have seen in public institutions the portrait of William II. hung in the most prominent place. And this does not seem to shock anybody. "Respectable" people hold that William suffered unjustly; the bourgeoisie has preserved all its former respect for this monarch, and his portrait continues to adorn public institutions.
At the same time the condition of affairs differs very largely in various parts of Germany. Thus in Bavaria and in Munich, its capital, the most rabid reaction now reigns, whereas in Prussia and its capital, Berlin, there is comparatively more liberty. In Prussia, in Berlin, the Communists may print at least one paper—the "Rote Fahne." Nothing of the kind could appear in Bavaria. Every Communist or Left Independent is arrested there, and the White Guard gangs are being openly and unrestrictedly organised. Only a couple of weeks ago, when there was trouble brewing in Berlin, many people were of opinion that the White Guards would move from Munich to Berlin in order to repeat the Kapp "putch" there. Bavaria and Munich are now the strongholds of White-Guard reaction. And if in the near future there will be a new march on Berlin, similar to that which took place last spring during Kapp's coup d'etat, there is no doubt that it will proceed from Bavaria, which at the present time is somewhat like the Promised Land for all the German White Guards.
But there are even more glaring instances of this absence of uniformity; not only various parts of Germany but even of individual towns are totally unlike each other with regard to political conditions. The present bourgeois Menshevik government is to a certain extent only a blind, whereas power in each individual town is wielded by those who have succeeded in getting hold of it. There are isolated spots in Germany where even up to the present day the actual power is in the hands of the workers. There are separate districts which have set up their small republics, enjoying more or less freedom. But along with them we observe many towns, which are wholly in the hands of the White Guards who refuse to obey their own bourgeois government at Berlin, and which pursue their own policy. Separate towns have their own local currencies. Local Berlin currency is not accepted in Hamburg, and vice versa.
All this indicates that we cannot regard the situation in Germany as being stable in any way. The German Mensheviks of the party of Noske and Scheidemann say this openly, and the German Mensheviks of the party of the Right Independents say the same in a veiled form: they are of the opinion that the revolution is over and a certain stable equilibrium is about to set in. In fact, there is nothing of the kind. There is no equilibrium. What on earth do they mean by equilibrium?
Germany is now passing through an interregrum, and there are only two ways out of it; either the complete victory of the landowners, and consequently the restoration of the monarchy (for the landowners are only dreaming of William the Emperor) or the second alternative, which is this: the semi-revolution of 1918, spoiled and distorted by the Mensheviks, who have sold themselves to the bourgeoisie, will be made by the workers the turning point for a real victorious proletarian revolution. What is now taking place is the molecular grouping of forces beneath the surface, the ripening of a crisis. At a given moment this crisis is bound to come from either of these two directions.
The present economic position of Germany is incredibly hard. Germany is living through utter financial bankruptcy. The value of the rouble is falling with us in Russia—it is a great burden for us, and we do not deny it. But we have a way out of it. We say: "We are approaching a time when we shall do away with all money. We are paying wages in kind, we are introducing free tramways, we have free schools, a free dinner, perhaps for the time being unsatisfactory, free housing, light, etc. We are introducing all this very slowly, in very troublesome circumstances, for the Soviet Republic is experiencing hard times. We are still forced to fight. But there is a way out, there is hope, and there are plans to make our hopes come true. But in a bourgeois country like Germany, where the depreciation of money is proceeding rapidly, where the paper currency inudates the country, where the State indebtedness amounts to hundreds of milliards and grows every week—there is no hope. Modem Germany cannot find a way out of this, so long as there is private property and paper currency. Germany is bound to become more and more involved in debts, she is bound to face a still greater financial bankruptcy, in fact the most utter ruin, for a bourgeois order without some stability in the money market is utter nonsense.
The foundation of bourgeois welfare in Germany is cracking, and we see instances of it at every step. The victorious Allies continue to rob Germany every day. And the most hopeless thing about the state of Germany is that she is not aware as yet how much precisely she owes to the Allies. The French and English bourgeois are still unwilling to state definitely how far they want to skin Germany. In this sense the peace of Versailles is far worse than that of Brest. The Brest treaty stated definitely the amount of the contribution we had to pay. But the French and English bourgeoisie do not wish as yet to tell the Germans how much they must pay. The victors are afraid to ask too little, and prefer to snatch ad. lib. as much as they can squeeze out of Germany.
They prefer to take in kind. They have seized the best of German transport, nearly all the motor lorries, they have taken all the ships, all the best locomotives, hundreds of thousands of heads of cattle. Recently, while we were in Germany, a new demand of the Entente for 120,000 of the best cows in Germany. This is sheer robbery. After our departure we read a telegram demanding all the Diesel engines in Germany. In a word everything that is good, everything that they can lay their hands on is seized by the French in the most shameless fashion. The French capitalists have dispatched to Germany a regular gang of officials, who act as controllers. Germany naturally tries to conceal everything from the Allies: arms, cows, motors, ships. And, therefore, the victors have sent a host of their own officials to unearth the hidden treasures. Now in Berlin and in all the German towns there are thousands of Allied officers, spies and all kinds of individuals sent from France and England to "control." They bribe many Germans in order to obtain secrets from them, to get to know where various things are stored, in order to lay their hands on them. They insult the German people and even the German capitalists in a most shameless manner. Any group of French officers sent as controllers to Germany can enter any Ministry in Berlin and say: "Clear out! This apartment is wanted by French officers."
Such is the position of bourgeois Germany.
It goes without saying that this too must tend to revolutionise Germany. This state of affairs taxes the ingenuity of German capitalists. Each of them says: I shall give the French capitalists ¾ of what I have robbed in the course of the many years of my bossing, but ¼ I will leave to myself and continue to exploit the German workers. The German capitalists are thus doing their best to be friendly with the Allies, and to come to terms with them. As to the working men, they hate the Allies and the German bourgeoisie alike, the latter for reducing the country to such a state and for selling itself to the Allies. How can we speak of the prosperity of a country which is liable to be robbed at any moment of all its neccesities, such as cattle, locomotives, even parts of mechanism (they take everything away from the factories, leaving them dismantled).
Apart from this the most terrible unemployment is reigning now in Germany. The unemployed number over 500,000, and about 100,000 of them are in Berlin alone. Scarcely any support is offered by the State. The latter is neither able nor desirous of giving that support. Even those working men who are employed work three days a week, as there is a shortage of work coal, and raw material. Every lump of loal before it is dug has already been marked out for France. A French officer stands by and watches that the coal is loaded and sent to France, where there is an equal shortage of coal. Thus, unemployment is increasing daily. The unemployed organise demonstrations and demand work—but get none. The bourgeoisie displays increased nervousness and arrest those who take part in demonstrations. The bourgeoisie trembles with fear when a group of such persons—however small—appears in the streets. The bourgeoisie knows that the atmosphere is charged with electricity, so much so that a small group can grow into a large street demonstration and cause serious conflict.
Even the most skilled workers are now in a worse condition than they were during the war. Housing conditions are desperately bad, houses are out of repair, there is extreme overcrowding, rent goes up all the time, as there is no restraint on the landlords. The price of necessaries is always rising. The working men's children are in extremely bad conditions. All our delegates observed that there were hardly any children to be seen in the streets, for they are herded in cellars and tenements. They are unable to show themselves because their clothes and boots are worn out and have come to an impossible state. The workers suffer great hardship economically, and only in those works, which are of special use to the Allies, where articles necessary to France are produced, do the manufacturers, with the aid of the French capitalists, do something to better the conditions of the workers.
Such is the general state of affairs.
The mad luxury in the towns which is indulged in by a handful of people, the negligible minority of profiteers, emphasises still more the glaring inequality and poverty of the rest of the population, who form by far the greater part of it.
I remember we arrived in Berlin late at night. The famous "Friedrichstrasse" and the streets which run into it are very animated and full of people. But who are "these" people. None but profiteers, sons of nobles, Allied officers and other people who are out for a high life. This is an old familiar sight of the street life in rich European cities. There are women cynically selling themselves in the streets, immaculate dandies with dull faces buying these women with incredible cynicism in the sight of all. They do it as simply as if they were buying a cane or a bottle of champagne. The sight is revolting. We feel ashamed for the men. Is everything here as before? How long will this capitalist "paradise" last?
We look out of the window upon the streets. The master of the situation is the well-fed, mediocre, shallow-minded bourgeois. Rich stores full of delicacies. Only a few weeks ago meat and various meat products began to appear on the market (up to now meat was rationed). The old familiar sight. A crowd of poor youngsters stand at these windows and strain their hungry eyes at everything that is exhibited there. Poor people stop there merely to look on with wistful eyes. There races up a thoroughbred; the carriage is occupied by a bourgeoisie who is leading a fast life. Here in the streets we notice the stolid faces of fat merchants, wearing bowler hats. They walk along and talk to each other with an air of dullness and apathy. One of them stops and draws out a huge gold watch the size of a cobble stone. Read through a dozen bourgeois papers, which spread their lies throughout Germany and poison the atmosphere with their putrid ideas. Listen to the conversations of merchants and profiteers in railway carriages. They talk only of "profits" and "business." Look at the bourgeois women. How stupid it all is. how vulgar, insipid, and humiliating to human dignity! …
When will it all end? When, oh when, will the giant, the German proletariat rouse up and shake off the bourgeois gang and their hirelings from the top of the social ladder? Thrice cursed be the so-called civilised capitalist world, a world that stifles the human soul, and turns millions of men into slaves!
Let us come back, however, to the labour movement in Germany. We must dwell somewhat more circumstantially on the German Communist Labour Party (K.A.P.D.). We knew before that in this party, at whose head there are many unstable people and nationalists, there are still many valuable workers. We were well aware that our comrades of the Spartacus League, in the heat of battle against the "left" leaders of the K.A.P.D. (i.e., the German Communist Labour Party), had to exaggerate things and show themselves uncompromising. But from the standpoint of the International we thought it our duty to do all in our power to win to our side all the best workers from the ranks of the K.A.P.D. Our acquaintance with the representatives and leaders of the German Communist Party in Germany itself has confirmed our opinion. We reckoned upon appearing in Berlin at the general meeting of the Berlin organisation of the German Communist Labour Party. But unfortunately this became impossible owing to the interference of the police.
The Communist International has a definite policy with regard to this party, and we are going to carry it out systematically and persistently. This summer the Executive Committee of the Communist International demanded from the German Communist Party the expulsion of nationalists like Laufenberg and Wolfheim. We are pleased to state that this demand has now been complied with. This showed us that the best proletarian elements of that party desired to meet the wishes of the Communist International, and to remove all obstacles to a friendly understanding between us. Otto Rhule, who fled from the Congress of the Communist International, on his return to Germany started a counter-revolutionary agitation against Soviet Russia after the fashion of Dittmann. He is a typical intellectual apostate, completely muddle-headed. At the same time he seems to be desperately fond of self-advertisement. The day before my arrival in Germany, Rhule announced by a special poster in Halle that he challenges me to a public debate. The public flocked in large numbers to his meeting. But I was of course absent, as I had not arrived at Halle at that time. Even if I had, I do not think it was worth my while to discuss matters with that gentleman.
It is a satisfaction to note that the workers who form the bulk of the German Communist Labour Party decided at once to exclude Rhule as well, as soon as they saw that he had started a counter-revolutionary agitation against Soviet Russia. Among the leaders of the K.A.P.D. there are some pure syndicalists. There are also people embittered by the internal strife through which they have passed, people who are therefore unable to take an impartial view of things. Many of these leaders will probably be lost to the proletarian revolution. But the bulk of the workers who form the K.A.P.D. will all the same become our comrades.
At the Halle Congress Crispien "cleverly" described the German Communist Labour Party as the bastard child of the union between the German Spartacists and the Russian Communists. All the petty bourgeois elements present at the Halle Congress were highly tickled at this "apt" phrase. This, however, will in no way affect us Russian Communists. We shall earnestly and persistently strive to bring the better part of the workers who are members of the K.A.P.D. within the folds of the German Communist Party, which is now being organised and unified.
Members of the German Communist Labour Party were, owing to our efforts, invited to the forthcoming general congress. Even if some of the members do not attend that united congress, we shall none the less insistently and patiently continue to invite them to join our ranks; and we feel sure that in the end the majority of the workers, who are members of the K.A.P.D., will be in the ranks of the unified party.
Amidst the general condition of affairs, such as we have described above, the workers grow more revolutionary every day. The strong point of the German revolution consists in the fact that Germany, as is commonly known, is an industrial country; the urban population in Germany greatly exceeds the rural population. In Germany the bulk of the population lives in towns, where the workers can better organise themselves. In Berlin, Hambourg, Leipzig, and especially in the coal districts, the workers form a majority. They have sheer physical preponderances on their side, and everything depends on them. Under such circumstances the working class of Germany can hope to obtain the best from the future.
What is it then that the German working class lacks, seeing that it has a big majority in the towns in order to get the upper hand over a bourgeoisie that is absolutely ruined and is giving way before our very eyes?
We cannot say that the German workers lack organisation. They have organisation. The German trade unions are the biggest, numbering some ten millions of members. There is no German worker who is not a member of a trade union. What is lacking is a clear revolutionary standpoint on the part of the working class. Working class organisation does not yet know what it wants. It does not yet possess such leaders who wish to vanquish the bourgeoisie. Those leaders only wish to flatter that bourgeoisie, to hobnob with it, to compromise with it. The workers possess the physical force. They form the overwhelming majority of the active population. The unions and parties have many members, but neither the unions nor the parties exhibit any definite aim or consciousness of purpose.
Why is it so?
Needless to say there are serious reasons for it. The German capitalists for decades previous to the war, during their peaceful progress, bred a whole class—the labour aristocracy, the so-called labour "leaders"—on crumbs from their lordly table. They reared in this manner several tens of thousands, probably 100,000 by now, of exploiters who are workers by origin, but who have sold themselves body and soul to the bourgeoisie. This is the chief mainstay of the bourgeoisie in Germany. Many years ago Marx used to point out (he observed it in England) the part played by the labour aristocracy, the superior caste of the workers, the caste of foremen, managers, trade union officials, editors, M.P.'s, factory bureaucrats, who for a small bribe were ever ready to sell the interests of the working class. If the capitalists allowed such "leaders" to shake hands with them and offered two fingers only, if the manager of a factory smiled to them and gave them a seat of honour, they would be prepared to sell the whole working class, they would employ every subterfuge in order to help the bougeoisie perpetuate its oppression over the working class. This stratum of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy is the soil upon which Menshevism was reared in Russia, and social democracy and the Right Independent Party in Germany. This sickly flower sprung up on putrid marshy soil. These labour aristocrats, reared by the bourgeoisie, are now the mainstay of capitalism. A number of countries are now on the very threshold of revolution, but the social democrats prevent them from advancing. The workers cannot get over the last difficulty, which has grown from within. They are not yet capable of crossing the Menshevik barrier. The German working class, as was particularly noticeable at Halle, has now reached the last obstacle, the Menshevik barrier. When German Menshevism is destroyed root and branch—and we seem to be pretty near that time—then the road will be clear, then the mighty organisation which the German working class possesses will not be a chain on the feet of the workers, but a lever by the aid of which the German working class will overturn bourgeois Germany and twist the neck of the German bourgeoisie.
The Independent Party is the chief labour party in Germany—it is the backbone of proletarian Germany. But up to now this party united both proletarian and Menshevik elements. It is because the Menshevik elements were tolerated in that party and were even guiding it that the party was paralysed all the time. It could not move a single step forward. At the crucial moment, when the working class was eager for the fight, the Menshevik wing of the Independents and the Right leaders put a drag on the wheel and endeavoured to restrain the whole labour movement. We in Russia are sometimes unable to understand how a proletarian party could tolerate leaders such as Messrs Crispien, Dittmann, and Hilferding, who remind us so vividly of that rabble which at one time "ruled" in Petrograd—Tseretelli, Dan, Tchernov, Tchkheidze, etc. No wonder! We suffered the same for many years, and it is not long since we have freed ourselves. We too were fettered to the Mensheviks, like convicts to their trucks, because we belonged to the same party. Did not the Mensheviks in 1905 betray us on every occasion? Did not the Mensheviks and the of the first revolution? Did they not betray us in 1905 during the first Moscow rising, and did they then not sermonise, "You should not have, taken up arms"? What did it mean at the time? It meant to submit to the Tsar's knout! Did not we hear the Mensheviks say in 1907–1908: "We must not do anything illegal; let us dissolve the party, let us abolish our past, compromise with the cadets and become 'respectable' people"? Were we not witnesses at the beginning of the war to the fact that Mensheviks appealed to the people to support the war and the Tsar? And did not the Mensheviks and Kerensky sell themselves outright to the Allies at the beginning of 1917? All this happened in Russia, and quite recently too.
We passed through that painful schooling the more rapidly because we immediately entered the revolutionary epoch. But even we paid dearly for these lessons. The working classes of other countries have to go through that period now, and their difficulties are greater, because their bourgeoisie is clever, more cunning, and more skilful than ours, and their Mensheviks display their artfulness in subtly deceiving the workers. This period in Germany has not been outlived yet.
That is the crux of the situation.
At the present time, however, the condition of the workers has become so hard, the treachery of the German Mensheviks has become so evident, that even there the Independent Party, hitherto united, has come to a split. And of course this fact will be of enormous importance not only to Germany, but to the whole International, and the international revolution, and first, and foremost to the workers of Italy, France, and England. We are therefore justified in saying a new page in the history of the struggle of the working class of Germany and of the whole of Europe was begun at Halle.
The German Mensheviks believe neither in God nor the devil. They imagine they are some kind of nurses and governesses appointed to the working class. But in fact they only hinder the progress of the working class. They imagine that the workers are simpletons, and unless the wise Menshevik aunt keeps them out of mischief, they will get themselves into an awful state.
One should have seen those venerable intellectual "leaders" at Halle. They were at a loss for words, these enlightened, experienced leaders, as they thought themselves when they were suddenly turned out by the workers! Our Mensheviks—Martov, Dan, Tseretelii, Tchkheidze—were equally unable to understand such a turn of affairs, and left us with the conviction that we had committed the greatest historical injustice, that we had destroyed the sacred intellectual vessel, that we are barbarians who fail to understand the intellectual beauty of those leaders, their great experience, the fact of their being the pearl of the party, the salt of the earth, etc. The same hatred was manifested in Halle towards the workers, because the latter failed to appreciate the Hilferding "pearl," because they did not appreciate the "learned" leaders, because they did not value those people, who for so many years have held back the German working class. A split was necessary and inevitable. And now that it has become a fact, we need only add better late than never.
This is the most important question bearing on the workers' revolution in the whole of Europe. We have seen in Russia both money grabbers and land grabbers. The former were bourgeois, the latter—rich, peasants. But we have hardly ever met any of them who were working men by origin. There was a time in Russia when the whole working class followed the Mensheviks; at the beginning of the revolution the whole working class made this big blunder. But as soon as its eyes were opened the whole class at once and unreservedly turned their backs on the Mensheviks—the moment the workers saw that they were traitors. In Germany the working class as a whole is also beginning to abandon Menshevism. But Germany possessed and still possesses a large section of what we may call the money grabbing workers. This is the labour aristocracy, which is numerically large in Germany.
When I charged the Right leaders at the Congress with being yellow leaders of Trade Unions, worse than the reactionary "Orgesch," they howled like whipped dogs, and continued to yell for three solid minutes, trying to shout me down. I had to say this however. This had to be said—for it is the absolute truth. There is not an inch of exaggeration. In Germany one sees with his own eyes that the chief enemy of the cause is the worker who has betrayed his class, the labour aristocracy, the Mensheviks who have set up the chief bulwark in defence of the bourgeoisie. These reactionary labour leaders are the principal enemies of the proletarian revolution. These tens of thousands of officials, who are bossing the Trade Unions, are born and bred of the working class. The workers sacrificed for them their earnings, their blood, and their sweat. Now they sit on the neck of the working class and betray it. They are well acquainted with the labour circles, they themselves once took part in them, they know our weak as well as our strong points, they know what ails us, for they are practical men, not idle theoreticians. It is precisely for that reason that they are of special value to the bourgeoisie. Their numbers are not great, but their significance is enormous. People trust them by habit; they know the Trade Union routine, they are well read, clever, and evasive. That is why they are so dangerous. They are the chief and the last enemy of the labour revolution in Germany. In Germany we can see more clearly than elsewhere that it is precisely this last enemy of ours which is our greatest, our arch enemy. This enemy is to a certain extent part and parcel of ourselves. Without cutting ourselves off, we cannot vanquish the bourgeoisie.
A large Communist Party is now being organised in Germany. The Left Independents have joined the Communists. This is gigantic force. This force must crush the reactionary leaders of the labour aristocracy. The events at Halle, which we had the joy to witness, and in which we took an active part, is not only the purging of the party—it is an event of the greatest historical importance. The working class has come to understand that it must amputate its gangrenous limb in order to become healthier and stronger. I said to the German bourgeois, when they were about to expel me: "When you let me in many of you bourgeois thought that my presence would hasten the split of the Independent Party, and the bourgeoisie is stupid enough to imagine that any split is likely to be to its advantage. I explained to the German bourgeois, as plainly as possible, that not every split will work to their advantage; there are splits which are advantageous to us. In order to illustrate my idea I gave them an instance of childish simplicity, making use of the four rules of arithmetic.
Imagine a regiment consisting of a thousand warriors; 800 of them are staunch men and the remaining 200 are self-seekers and shirkers. If you throw out the 200 self-seekers, you may at first imagine that the "split" would be disadvantageous, as there are now apparently fewer men. But in fact 800 real fighters will constitute a much stronger force than 1,000 men of whom 200 were cowards, who spread panic at the decisive moment. The same may be said of the German party. If we throw out the reformists, cowards, good-for-nothings, self-seekers, in a word the Mensheviks, shall we become weaker on that account? No, we shall grow stronger. At a moment of danger and decision there will be no one in our midst who will spread panic and demoralise us, no one will go over to the enemy, no one will betray us at every step. Is this not a gain?
What can we expect in Germany now? We repeat—when we look closer at the present state of the German labour movement, when we see such gatherings as the Halle Congress, when we become familiar with the German trade union periodicals—we are more and more convinced that the chief and, may be, the only serious support of the German bourgeoisie at the present time is the labour bureaucracy and the labour aristocracy, which is ruling the German Trade Unions. There are about 100,000 officials in the free German Trade Unions. Herein lies the chief support, the chief White Guard of the bourgeoisie. They are the white army of German capitalism, the watchdogs of capital. Whenever the bourgeoisie wants some mean, dirty, murderous work to be done, it makes use of no others than these pseudo-labour "leaders." These reactionaries of labour extraction give the bourgeoisie everything that is most precious to the working man—his energies, his physical strength, all his knowledge of life, in a word, the most valuable gifts the worker possesses—these counter-revolutionary ex-workers enrol to serve the bourgeoisie everything. When we look closer at it, when we observe how this labour bureaucracy is strangling the working class, when we see how everything is made to serve the ends of capital—the very blood rushes to our head in an outburst of irrepressible indignation.
This is the chief weight on the feet of the working class? This is the last obstacle which we must remove in order to come to close quarters with the small handful of capitalists, and simply crush them by the weight of our numbers. The working class has no greater enemy than the handful of ex-working men who have sold themselves outright to the bourgeoisie, and are led in political matters by Scheidemann, Noske, Hilferding, Renaudel and Co., and the Trade Unions by Legien and Dissmann, Mot, Gompers, and the rest of the counter-revolutionary "labour" rabble.
What must be will be! Let the reptiles of opportunism hiss at us all over the world, let the big and small Dissmanns of all countries raise frenzied expostulation—this beastly thing must be crushed! Only when the working class shall have crushed under its heavy boot the head of this treacherous reptile will their hands be freed to take the field in a final battle against the capitalists, whom the "labour" lieutenants, hired by them, have served so loyally up till now.
The Left Independents, together with the German Communist Party and the best element of the German Communist Labour Party, will now form a great proletarian Communist Party. The bourgeoisie and its hirelings will, of course, not be passive spectators. The counter-revolutionary camp, from the "Orgesch" organisation to the Central Committee of the Right Independents, is perfectly aware of the enormous danger which the Communist Party presents to the bourgeois order, considering that 500–600 thousand men will immediately join it. The new Communist Party will, like a huge magnet, draw to itself the best elements of all the labour organisations. Those bourgeois fools who welcomed the split in the Independent Party will soon show their fangs when they see that the split was only one side of the medal, while the other side was the unification of all the best elements in the Labour movement into one powerfll Communist Party. There is an end to flabbiness. The K.A.P.D. (the German Communist Labour Party) have already decided to amalgamate, and we are sure that the overwhelming majority of the best workers, who are members o£ the K.A.P.D., will not remain passive, and that they will be the united Communist Party which is now being organised.
The bourgeoise clique and their flunkey brethren, the Right Independents and the Scheidemannists, will undoubtedly heap persecutions on the new party, and they will try to do it as soon as possible in order to prevent the new party from properly organising itself. We have scarcely any doubts that when it will come to serious collisions and the bourgeoisie decides that it is time for a new massacre of the German working class, the bourgeoisie will again entrust this delicate task to the gentlemen of the Social Democratic Party. The bourgeoisie will one way or another attempt to set up a government, in which the chief responsibility will rest on the Social Democrats. Most likely the German bourgeoisie will invite the Right Wing of the Independents to enter that government. The military operations will be taken over by Ludendorf and "Orgesch," and the political responsibility for the slaughter of working men will be thrust once more on to the Scheidemannists and the Right Independents. That is intelligible enough. What could be better for the bourgeoisie than to carry out its infernal aims through the medium of men like Noske and Dissmann? The German working class must fully realise the danger and face it without flinching; they must close their ranks and prepare their arms.
Latterly the social traitors have been turned out of the Ministries in a number of countries. Branting is no longer president of the Council of Ministers of Sweden; Renner and Bauer are no longer ministers in Austria; Vandervelde, apparently, will have to remain for some time without his portfolio in Belgium (a social democratic paper has stated in all seriousness that Vandervelde, the ex-minister of his king, is retiring in order to devote his time in leading the International).
In Czecho-slovakia all the social traitors have been turned out of the Czecho-Slovak Cabinet. In a word, there is a sort of epidemic of this kind. "The Moor has done his work, the Moor may go." The bourgeoisie casts aside its "Socialist" flunkeys as soon as they become superfluous. But this will not prevent the same bourgeoisie from inviting the social traitors once more into the government as soon as it has some new "delicate" errand for them. I repeat, the German bourgeoisie will undoubtedly make this attempt as soon as the struggle takes a decisive turn.
The mad fury, which was vented by the Right Independents at Halle, evoked from us the declaration that in fact the Right leaders of the Independents have only one prospect before them, the reunion with the Scheidemannists. However much the "Socialist" reactionaries, who have gathered under the wing of Hilferding and Crispien, may wail in loud remonstrance there is no other alternative left to them. The best proletarian elements will join the Communist Party, and the Right Independents will join the so-called "left" Scheidemannists. Then the situation will be perfectly clear. There is no place for a party of mediocrities at a time of workers' revolution. The events at Halle are of vast importance for the working class of the whole world. This is not a mere struggle of factions within the party, but the struggle of the working class for its liberation is taking place in the German party due to the split at Halle. The German working class has at last reached the high road. We feel convinced that the German working class will now free itself from its last intellectual fetters, which prevented it from moving forward. The working class is pulling itself together, reforming its ranks, and waking ready for the final battle. The best part of the German working class has pointed out the way to the workers of other countries. The latter will give their hearty thanks to the German worker.
The sally of the Communist International in the West has been crowned with success. The contest between the representatives of Communism and the representatives of reformism and semi-reformism has ended in our favour. The last Mohicans of opportunism, who pretended to follow Marx, have been utterly crushed in this fight of ideas. The appearance of the Communist International on the field was, in the words of several comrades, like a bombshell exploding under the very nose of the bourgeoisie of Europe.
The barking of the bourgeois lap-dogs against the Communist International continues in the whole of the European bourgeois reactionary and white guard social democratic press. Let them bark! The Communist International will go on its way, and rally the working class of the whole world to its colours.
Petrograd, Smolny, 13th November, 1920.
Kirkwood & Co., Printers. 127 Stockwell Street, Glasgow.
FOR SOCIALISM RIGHT NOW
THE COMMUNIST
Published by the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain, 16 King Street, London, W.C. 2. Every Week-end, Twopence.
Read THE COMMUNIST for
Exclusive Information and Fearless Criticism
Expert and Critical Articles dealing with Industrial Affairs, the British Labour Movement, Tactics, Foreign Affairs, Organisation, etc.
Authentic Russian News.
Brilliant and Biting Cartoons
which are known all over Europe and reproduced by Labour papers throughout the world.
The Paper that never lets you down.
The Communist
The Paper that warned you of Black Friday NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING SOCIETY, LTD
THE
Scottish Co-operator "
The Сo-operative Journal for Scotland
Contains all the Co-operative news of Scotland week by week. Articles on Co-operative and Social questions by leading writers. News of the Guilds. Social Topics. Notes by the Way. Book Reviews. Literary Gleanings'
THE
"Co-operative News "
The Official Organ of the British Co-operative Movement
Contains Reports of all English and the principal Foreign Co-operative happenings. Special Articles of Current Co-operative and Social Interest.
OTHER PUBLICATIONS—
"THE WOMAN'S OUTLOOK." For the Guildswomen.
"OUR CIRCLE." For the Bairns.
"THE MILLGATE MONTHLY." For Everybody.
Registered Office 22 LONG MILLGATE, MANCHESTER
Scottish Office 119 PAISLEY ROAD, GLASGOW
UNION PUBLISHING CO.
93 GREAT WESTERN ROAD
ST. GEORGE'S CROSS
GLASGOW
Sellers of
Stationery, Books, Roll-Top Desks,
Carbon Paper, etc.
BOOKS! We have a large selection of Novels which are being sold at 1s. each, and other reduced prices.
SECOND-HAND TYPEWRITERS in good order. Repairs done.
ADJUSTABLE BOOK SHELVES for Small Libraries.
Call and Inspect our Stock
Ready September 20th, 1921.
G. ZINOVIEV'S
Report
of the
Executive Committee
of the
Communist International
For 1920-1921.
Delivered at the 4th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International
On JUNE 25th, 1921.
86 PAGES. Photograph of ZINOVIEV.
PRICE 4d. (3/3 per doz.) Postage Extra.
Sale or Return for Branches.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
| Original: |
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1921, before the cutoff of January 1, 1929. The longest-living author of this work died in 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse |
|---|---|
| Translation: |
This work was published in 1921 and is anonymous or pseudonymous due to unknown authorship. It is in the public domain in the United States as well as countries and areas where the copyright terms of anonymous or pseudonymous works are 102 years or less since publication.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse |
