The Daily Worker Newspaper, January 24, 1925, Page 8

Bolshevism or Trotskyism? (Continued from last Saturday.) it. Was There a Right Wing in the Bol- shevist Party? We must give a clear answer to this question. Everybody who is familiar with the real history of Bolshevism wili, without hesitation, give the fol. lowing answer: There was none and there could be none. There could be no right wing bo- cause the Leninist fundamental prin- ciples of the structure of the Bolshe- vist party excluded every possibility of a right and of a left wing. There could be no right wing he cause the first split between Bolshe- viki and mensheviki had already tak- en place in 1903 on the eve of the first revolution of 1905. Comrade Lenin wrote regarding the Italian socialist party that even its first splitting from the extreme chau- yinists which took place some years before the world war—that even this superficial split which was far from being complete, helped it in the first period of the imperialist war, in the year 1914, to adopt a more commend- able standpoint than the standpoint of those social democratic parties who up to the year of 1917, and even later remained united. Every one who has read the articles of Comrade Lenin from the years 1914-1915 on German social democracy (“Against the Stream”) will remember how passion- ately Lenin advocates the splitting of the German social democracy, what great hopes he placed on this split, how he explained the complete col- lapse of German social democracy among other things as being due to the belated split between the left and right wings. “The type of the socialist parties of the epoch of the Second Interna- tional was the party which tolerated opportunism in its midst, which dur- ing the ten years of the period of peace continually grew in numbers but which hid itself and adapted it- self to the revolutionary workers from whom it took over its Marxist term- inology and avoided every clear de finition of principle. This type out- lived its time. “In Italy the party was an exception for the epoch of the Second Interna- tional; the opportunists with Bisso- lati at the head were expelled from the party. The result of this crisis was excelient . . . We, in no way, idealize the Italian socialist party and do not guarantee that it will prove to remain firm in the event of Italy com ing into the war. We are not speak- ing of the future of this party, we are speaking now only of the pres- ent. We affirm the indisputable fact that the workers of the majority of the European countries were deceived by the ficticious unity of the oppor- tunists with the revolutionaries and that Italy is a happy exception—a country where at the present moment there is no such deception. That which for the Second International was a fortunate exception, must and will be a rule for the Third Interna- tional. The proletariat will always— so long as capitalism exists— be in contact with the petty-bourgeoisie. It is unwise, sometimes to reject a tem- porary alliance with them, but to unite with them, to be united with the opportunists can at present only be defended by the enemies of the proletariat in the present epoch.” (“Against the Stream” p. 36.) Whoever thinks over these words will understand why in a party which was formed by Comrade Lenin in the fight against the mensheviki and against Trotsky there could exist no right wing. “Our Russian party has long since broken with the opportunist groups and elements . . . The dead weight of opportunism was not able to drag down our party into the deep. And this circumstances rendered it pos- sible—as the split of the Italian party —to fulfill its revolutionary duty.” So wrote Lenin in “Socialism and War.” (Second chapter.) Comrade Trotsky must understand all this and then he will understand why one cannot speak of a right wing of the Bolshevist party which was created by Lenin in a “fierce” strug- gle against all non-Bolshevist frac- tions, groups and tendenctes. Whoever understands anything of the theory, of the tactics and of the organizatory principles of Leninism cannot claim that a right wing exist- ed in the Bolshevik party. Bolshevism differed fundamentally in that it could not permit and did not permit the party to be organized as a block of all possible tendencies, as a block of a right, of a left wing, of a center, etc. Think over what Comrade Lenin has written fot example regarding the period of the emigration time of the party. He said: The great va- riety of political tendencies in emigra- tion—mensheviki, S. R. anarchists, maximalists, which were again divid- ed into sub sections, had the effect that all non-Bolshevist elements were withdrawn, as by a plaster, from the body of the party. The same was the case in the period of legal and illegal existence of our party between Feb- ruary and October, 1917, At that time we saw the same variety and multipli- city of political parties, fractions and minor fractions, which inevitably ab- sorbed everything that was not thoro- ly Bolshevik. In this manner the Bol- shevik party became a crystallization peint only for Bolsheviki. Hence our party was one indivisible whole. It involves a complete ignorance of Lenin and of Leninism to admit the possibility that Lenin, even if only for a short time, had tolerated the existence of a right wing in the Bol- shevik party. And what is still more important is, that Leninism is irrecon- cilable with the existence of a right wing in the Bolshevist party. It could be argued that there were Rolshevik “reconciliators” who great- ly resembled a right wing of Bolshe- vism. Yes, that is a fact. The Bolshevik “reconciliators” played an episodal role at the commencement of the split between the Bolsheviki and the men- sheviki (1903-1904), and then also in the years of the counter-revolution (1910-1911). But at the moment of this hesitating attitude ofthe Bol «hevik “reconciliators” it came essen- tially to a direct split between us and them. The Bolshevik party, un- der Lenin’s leadership, was ready to amputate this small fragment from its body, and this it did in order to re- main a homogeneous Bolshevik party. Tho overwhelming majority of thore reconcilors are at present in our ranks and nobody thinks of asserting today that they recollect there being in any way @ sort of right tendency in the party. Their most prominent leader was I. F. Dubrovinsky, and no- body who knew him would pretend that he represented in any way a right wing. From one prison to another, from one banishment to another, went such comrades as Dubrovinsky and Nogin; and in the period between the one prison and the other they made many passing errors regarding ques- tions of organization. Of course, these comrades could have fallen victims to opportunism if their errors had un- dergone a logical development. This however, did not happen. Lenin put the question bluntly: Hither expulsion or submission to the decisions of the Bolshevik leadership. That does not mean that in the long years of the history of Bolshe- vism there were never any differenc- es and various tendencies between the most prominent functionaries of the party. There were, of course, such differences. In 1906 Kamenev advo- eated the boycott of the Duma (a “left” attitude), while Comrade Lenin recommended participation in the Duma. In the plenum of the ©. C. in 1910 (the last joint plenum with the mensheviki) a section of the Bol- sheviki attempted unity with Trotsky, whilst Comrade Lenin and other Bol- shevik leaders, (among them the pres- ent writer) were emphatically against this attempt. These, however, were only episodal differences of opinion. But the differences which we had with the people grouped round the paper “Vperjod” (Forward) in 1908 ter of fact, defended opportunist tac- tics, that is, they abandoned the fun- damental basis of Bolshevism. Th« group was expelled from our organiza- tion and only those have returned who have thoroly recovered from the “Vperjod” sickness. Also those differences cannot be characterized as being episodal whicl: urese in connection with the war. snd which extended only to a few prominent Bolsheviki at me beginning of the imperialist war. Bolshevism as a whole adopted a thoroly correct at- titude towards the imperialist war and was conscious of the world-historica} slogan: “Conversion of the imperial- ist war into civil war.” A few im- portant Bolshevist functionaries, for example, I. Goldenberg, vacillated re- garding the question of the charac ter of the war, and it came to an or- ganizatory break with these comrades. Goldenberg was not able to return to the party until 1921, after he had thoroly recognized his fault. What is the explanation of some of the errors committed in the first days of the February revolution? The gen- eral staff of the Bolsheviki, after years of imperialist war and white terror, came together from various parts 0° ‘he earth, after the central function aires of the Bolsheviki had lived sé parated from their best friends. All were overwhelmed by the world his torical events. Many things turned out differentiy from what had beea expected. In the first days of the revolution the Bolsheviki themselves were in the minority among the Petro- grad workers. The mood of the sol- diers, whom Lenin later called “hon- est defenders of their country,” creat- ed great tactical difficulties for us. We asked ourselves how we could ap- proach these masses, how we could at least get them to listen to us. All this led te these difficulties which were responsible for the errors of the “Pravda” in the first days after the February revolution, befere the arrival of Comrade Lenin. Can one from this infer the exist- ence of a right wing in the Bolshevist party, which Cemrade Trotsky at- tempts to represent as a “soctal cemo- erati¢e,” “gemi-menshevist” wing. On- ly he who does not know the Boishe- vist party ean say such a thing, who judges the party from the outside, who for fifteen years has fought against this party, and who in 1924 again declares war against the party. There were serious diiferences among the Bolsheviki in the period from April to September, 1917. Groups could have been formed out of these differences if the comrades who had orred had not confessed their crrors, if events had not quickly liquid:ted these errors, if the party had not unanimously repudiated these errors, if the party had not had a_ Lenin. Then a split would have occurred, but in no event would a right wing have been formed. There were sharp differences among the Bolsheviki in October and Novem- ber, 1917. During this time the pres- ent writer was among those comrades who had erred. If the errors had not heen immediately recognized as such, if the party had not unanimously cor- if the these led to fact the contrary of all this occurred. The first split between the Bolshe- viki and the mensheviki began in 1903. Since about 1910 the Bolshevist party has had a completely indepen- dent organizatory life. Between 1903 and 1910 Bolshevism experienced 2 period of insufficient orzanizatory growth. From 1910 to 1917 this could no longer be the case. There was and could be no right wing in the Bolshevist party. Iv. is the Formation of a Right Wing in the R. C. P. Possible at the Present Time? By G. Zinovieo From whence can a right wing, a right fraction, a right tendency arise? \t would be absurd to explain this by ‘he personal responsibility of this or that comrade. No, there exist indis- = objective pre-conditions there: ‘or. What constitute the essential ditter- ences between the present state of af- fairs in our party and the position of our party before the October revolu- tion? ; First: The mensheviki, the S. R. the anarchists and the remaining groups have disappeared from the open political life of our country. In the interest of the successful carry- ing out of the proletarian dictatorship, the victorious working class, under the lead of our party, had to render illegal the S. R. the mensheviki, the anti-Soviet section of the anarchists, and other groups opposed to the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Only the Russian C..P. is legally ac- tive. Today it cannot be otherwise. With such a state of affairs it is un- avoidable that many elements enter our party, who, in the event of the existence of other legal parties, would aot be with us. Second: We have ideologically shattered two important parties which during two decades were our rivals; che S. R. and the mensheviki. Some en thousand members of these par- ies have come over to our party, mong them many very active mem- vers, as for instance Comrade Trott ky. A considerable portion of these comrades have been completely assim- tated by our party and now are good Bolsheviki. But we must not disguise the fact that the annihilation of the 3. R. and the mensheviki as legal par- ties does not serve to promote the homegencous composition of our party. Third: Our country is passing thru a transition period. Up to October, 1917, the situation was in many re- spects more difficult, but clearer. The party was confronted with an imme- diate task: the overthrow of the bour- geoisie. The present situation is more complicated. The Nep, the bourgeois environment, all these factors render our situation extremely complicated. Never in the history of the struggle of the international working class was a workers party in such complicated transition period. Fourth: The social composition of the party has become heterogeneous. Up to October, 1917, our party was al- most entirely a party of workers. Af ter 1917, the situation has changed. We have at present over a hundred thousand peasant members, some thousands of members from the high- er educational institutions, and many thousands of Scviet employes. What is the meaning of all our ef- ferts to purge our party, the Lenin recruitment? The aim of all these efforts is to render the composition of the party as homogeneous as possible, to prevent a dilution of its social com- position. All these together create the pre- requisites under which the formation of a right wing is possible in the party created by Lenin—and is now with- out Lenin. When we deal with the attacks of Comrade Trotzky upon the Bolshevist Cc. C. with the greatest objectivity, then we see that their content is the following: During these years Com- rade Trotzky gave expression to ev- erything which is not strictly Bolshe- vist, and which feels itself cramped within the frame of the old Lenin tac- tics. Trotzky is sincerely convinced that the old methods of Leninism can no longer today fulfill their task, when the party is acting in such a vast arena. According to his opinion, the party must become a block of various tendencies and fractions. We all know that all those process- es which are developing in our coun- try are reflected in our party, which is in possession of power and which has suppressed all the other, anti- Soviet parties. We Leninists draw ee eee that eras the more necessary to preserve the greatest possible homogeneity of the party, the greatest firmness of leader- ship and the greatest possible devo- tion to Leninism. To maneuver, some- times even to make concessions, is un- re-| avoidable. But it is necessary that the party shall always remain Bol- shevist. Trotzky, on the other hand, draws different conclusions from the complexity of our present situation. Tt seems to him that the earlier “sec- tarianism,” steel-firmness, is leading the country to the edge of the abyss. (Continued on page 7) LL