Re: Comintern (Re: DSP on Cannon) (Re: Camejo's article)

[ben <benj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think that the early Comintern was right to try and generalise the
lessons the Bolsheviks learned, on organisational matters as much as
anything else. I think they were right to call for separation of the
communists from the morass of Kautskyites and right-wingers. I think the
principle (which may have not been understood by all communists) was the
_political independence_ of the revolutionaries from the opportunists.
Bear in mind that the Comintern also advised united front work with some
of these right-wingers when useful, eg the CPGB affiliating to Labour.
Many tactics may flow from one principle, depending on circumstances.

 But I agree that attempts to hasten the formation of Communist Parties
in other countries caused problems. The Scottish revolutionary John
MacLean wrote in 1920, of the CPGB (from which he had been "secretly
expelled", he said):

"William Gallacher is going the rounds ridiculing the idea of a
"Scottish" Communist Party because he has been to Russia and poses as
the gramophone of Lenin ... Scottish marxians are surely not going to
accept as an authority on marxism a man such as Gallacher who never was
a marxian, but an openly avowed anarchist ... If Lenin tells us to unite
with elements who are anarchists, we must reply by asking the Bolsheviks
to unite with the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries. We stand for
the marxian method applied to British conditions. The less Russians
interfere in the internal affairs of other countries at this juncture
the better for the cause of revolution in those countries. Rothstein's
activities drove Fairchild out of the BSP, and his approaches to me
created a situation that compelled the BSP to gently slip me out. The
leadership of the BSP then fell to Lieut. Col. Malone MP, who in 1918
was on the executive of the Reconstruction Society, the body that
flooded the country with leaflets poisoning the minds of the people
against Russia and the Russian revolution."
(From "In the Rapids of Revolution" page 225; n.b. I think MacLean uses
the term "marxian" as synonymous with "marxist")

In his "Open letter to Lenin" Maclean wrote of how the CPGB could serve
as a tool of British foreign policy by deceiving the Russians about the
revolutionary character of the British workers--which was vastly
exaggerated by Gallacher when he visited Moscow. Leaving, for now, the
allegations of the CPGB being a tool of Lloyd George (which are worth
reading and thinking about), we see that the sectarian and opportunist
leaders (and at least one very dubious character, Malone) managed to
impose themselves on the CPGB. MacLean remarks, "Those who are coming
together are a heterogenous mixture of anarchists, sentimentalists,
syndicalists, with a sprinkling of marxists. Unity in such a camp is
likely to be impossible; but should unity lead to any menace, then the
"leaders" will conduct surplus energy through "safe" channels--safe to
Lloyd George."

If anyone has access to this collection of MacLean's writings ("In the
rapids of Revolution", Alison & Busby, 1978) or the excellent biography
by his daughter Nan Milton (Pluto press I think, early 1970s) they are
well worth a read. I think the John MacLean society in Scotland is
raising money to reprint them. Some of the texts are available from the
Scottish Socialist Republican Movement at <http://srsm.port5.com/srsm/>.
Obviously MacLean made mistakes himself, but in thinking independently
he was far ahead of the other "leaders" of the CPGB.

We shouldn't blame all the mistakes and follies of the CPGB, CPUSA, CPA
or any other CP on Moscow--whether it's Lenin's Moscow or Stalin's
Moscow. The sectarianism and opportunism that came to characterise the
CPs in many countries has its roots in the socialist movements of those
countries: these problemswere not caused by Moscow. Of course the
weaknesses of the CPs facilitated their use as tools of Soviet foreign
policy in the coming years, and the CP name undoubtedly added extra
legitimacy to their ridiculous twists and turns through the 1930s (and
beyond).

An Indian Communist, B. Sivaraman of the CPI-ML (Liberation), made the
following comments about the early Comintern, in 2000 (taken from LINKS
journal #15):

"The Third international was born in extraordinary circumstances. The
chauvinistic turn by the parties of the Second International put to the
fore the defence of the fundamentals of Marxism. The fight came up as an
internal trend within the Second International, which later assumed the
shape of the Third International. Subsequently, the victory of the
October Revolution gave it a sweep to expand the frontiers of the
revolutionary communist movement as well as to alter the balance in
favour of the Leninist current.

"Perhaps the Bolsheviks made the maximum out of the international impact
of the October Revolution. But the flip side was the grandiose scheme of
attempting to direct the revolutionary movement in different countries
from a single centre. Initially, so long as the exercise of building
internationals was confined to Europe, by and large there was perhaps a
relative homogeneity even though there were key differences in the
conditions from country to country. Once numerous colonial and dependent
countries got into the circus, things became unwieldy. Probably those
who were running the Comintern realised their folly at some point and
tried to introduce some flexibility, like intermediate conferences,
anti-imperialist leagues etc. But by then things had gone too far.

"It was not that "distortions of centralism" were associated with this
or that individual leader or this or that phase. The agony of Italian
comrades, as brought out in the political writings of Antonio Gramsci in
the late 1920s, illustrates the pitfalls of such centralism even when
Lenin was around. The distortions were inherent in such an
organisational form. ( ... )

"I was sort of forced to read Fernando Claudin's account of the
Comintern before coming here. I got the impression that about a dozen
countries missed out on revolution all because of a demon sitting at the
centre of the Comintern. It is difficult for me to judge whether
Fernando Claudin was right or wrong. Yet, it left me wondering whether
those revolutions were worth their salt which could be derailed by an
individual or an international outfit or even some wrong political
tactics decided from above. It appeared to me to be some kind of
demonological conception of history rather than historical materialism.
( ... )

"Those who put down roots among their own people survived, be they
Stalinist parties, Mao Zedong Thought parties or Trotskyite parties;
those who adjusted with the changing world conditions survived."

Regarding the criticism Lenin made of the comintern theses, note Lenin
says "As I said, the resolution is excellent, and I subscribe to every
one of the fifty paragraphs. But I must say that we have not yet
discovered the form in which to present our Russian experience to
foreigners"--that is, the principles are correct, but to explain the
spirit behind them is the difficult task facing the comintern, not
simply imposing the rules. Because of the time and resource pressures
facing it, the incompetence of the CPs in places like Britain, and the
weaknesses indicated by B. Sivaraman above, the actual spirit of what's
now called "Leninism" was conveyed only very poorly.

The actual mistakes made in various countries should not be
automatically traced to the Executive Committee of the Communist
International. For example, the counter-revolutionary role of the
Spanish CP in 1937-39 is no doubt in large part due to Moscow, as the
party was virtually created from Moscow on the back of the material aid
given by the USSR. But the failures of the veteran revolutionary Andres
Nin, and the whole POUM, or for that matter the treachery of the vastly
influential "anarchist" leaders like Garcia Oliver and Federica
Montseny--indicates that a revolution wasn't likely to be successful
anyway.

On Cannon in the 1920s: I'm not an expert, but I don't think he ever
tried to portray himself as some kind of saint from birth. During the
1920s he was one of the main factional players. Maybe he was more
frequently in the right than the others, I don't know. In "History of
American Trotskyism" he says that he was uneasy about the directions the
other faction leaders were going, but had no alternative until he read
Trotsky's  document for the 1928 Comintern congress. We should recognise
that what he did prior to this was without his later political compass
and understanding. (or some may disagree and say he was always the same
bar-room brawler of a factionalist).

Cannon said in that book "in the modern epoch you cannot build a
revolutionary political party solely on a national basis. You must begin
with an international program, and on that basis you build national
sections of an international movement." Certainly the way that is
sometimes interpreted by many later Trotskyists, including Cannon at
times I think, can be wrong if not outright ridiculous. It can lead to
ridiculous dogmatism rather than involvement in the struggle. But  if
one takes "international program" as an international analysis, an
internationalist outlook, that's certainly indispensable. Having a party
with clear politics, with a well-understood line of march (with or
without minority dissent) is important if we aren't going to end up with
the mishmash that MacLean refers to, paralysed not only by its
opportunist leaders, but by its internal disunity.

Louis wrote:
"For example, they state that "to carry out daily party work every
member
should as a rule belong to a small working group, a committee, a
commission, a fraction, or a cell. Only in this way can party work be
distributed, conducted, and carried out in an orderly fashion." Of
course,
what this led to everywhere is the immediate creation of fractions or
cells. Anybody who has been a member of a "Marxist-Leninist" group will
be
familiar with this approach to political work. Nobody has ever thought
critically about what it means to have a "cell" or a "fraction" in a
union
or mass movement that speaks with the same voice on behalf of a single
tactical orientation, but nevertheless the rule--hardly discussed at the
Congress--became law."

Well, I think that's definitely the most effective way for Marxists to
work in the mass movement: as a co-ordinated political intervention. A
fraction or cell exists for that co-ordination. Plenty of people _have_
thought critically about this--mostly the anarchists, who substitute
rampant individualism and egotism for collective co-operation in my
experience. What alternative do you propose, Louis?

Ben Courtice
http://home.connexus.net.au


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.