By John Riddell. In his review of my edition of the Communist International’s Fourth Congress (1922),1 Ian Birchall warns against a “scriptural approach” to the Comintern record, but also affirms that studying it “can be of great value.” Where can this value be found? A controversy among Marxists over this year’s elections in Greece points our way to an answer. Read more…
By John Riddell. Ask nine Marxists on a weekend outing to give advice on “organizing for change,” and you must expect divergent answers. The themes raised by nine speakers at an Ideas Left Out weekend retreat near Ganonoque, Ontario on August 3-6, 2012, covered a lot of ground: presence, Palestine, Greece, negation, trust, diversity, opportunity, stamina, and solidarity. Read more…
Review by Barry Healy (Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal)
In 1986, British Marxist Raymond Williams, polemicising against the then rising, trendy post-modernists, asked the question, “When was modernism?” He pointed out that “modern” first became synonymous with “now” in the 16th century[1]. While there is no more modern ideology than Marxism, the world is forever changing – what is “modern” changes and with it so must Marxism. Read more…
By John Riddell. On July evenings, most people in Toronto are just trying to find ways to escape the heat and humidity. Nevertheless, on Monday July 30, attendance at a meeting on Contested Futures: Tar Sands and Environmental Justice greatly exceeded the organizers’ expectations.
Over 150 people filled the room for the opening session – many had to sit on tables or stand – to hear from two indigenous leaders of environmental justice actions in Ontario and two delegates to the People’s Summit Rio+20. Participants then took part in seven simultaneous workshops on plans for future action.
The following review takes up the recently published proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, held in 1922. Ian Birchall is a Marxist historian and longtime member of the British Socialist Workers Party. The review first appeared in International Socialism #135 (June 2012) under the title, “Grappling with the United Front,” and is reprinted by permission. Subheadings have been added. – JR
Posted here is an exchange between myself and Ernesto, plus a brief rejoinder from me, on the evolution and current course of the U.S. SWP. These comments deal with issues raised in articles and comments at “The SWP Attempts an Outward Turn,” “Causes of a Socialist Collapse,” and Ernesto’s “Letter in Support of the SWP’s Current Course” on this website.
Contents
- John Riddell: I do not see SWP initiatives toward broader actions carried out jointly.
- Ernesto: Support a concrete united front class approach through the SWP 2012 presidential campaign.
- John Riddell: A revolutionary movement must strive to draw together in action workers with different political opinions. Read more…
When the concluding volume of Barry Sheppard’s history of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party was published recently, it set loose a vigorous debate including many contributions that defended the SWP’s current record. To my knowledge, this is the first extensive exchange between critics and supporters of the SWP in at least three decades. I am reposting here a lengthy and forceful letter in support of the SWP’s positions posted on this site by Ernesto. Other comments will be found following “The SWP Attempts an Outward Turn” and “Causes of a Socialist Collapse,” on this website, and on the blog of Gus Horowitz. — John Riddell. Read more…
By John Riddell. Part 2 of a review of Barry Sheppard’s history of the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.).
The first part of this article contended that the U.S. SWP’s attempt during the 1976-83 period to turn outward toward unity with other revolutionary currents cannot be blamed for its subsequent retreat into self-absorbed isolation. To be sure, the outward turn was partial, flawed, and inconsistent. But a much more ominous development was under way.
As Barry Sheppard documents in his book on the SWP’s decline,1 the outward turn was undercut from the outset by simultaneous moves in the opposite direction. The outward and inward turns occurred at the same time, confusing party members then and confounding historians of the SWP to this day.
By John Riddell. Part 1 of a two-part article. Part 2 is available here. The second volume of Barry Sheppard’s history of the U.S. Socialist Workers Party (SWP) provides us at last with a foundation of fact and analysis for discussion of the party’s unexpected and deep decline in the 1980s and after.1
The SWP, the main expression of Trotskyism in the U.S. since 1928, grew in the 1960s and 1970s to become the country’s most vigorous and effective Marxist organization. Subsequently, it withdrew from the stage of working-class politics and dwindled to a small, self-absorbed remnant with a harsh, undemocratic political culture.
The following review by Alexander Marshall of Toward the United Front: Proceedings of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International, 1922 appearedin Marx and Philosophy Review of Books. Subheads and paragraphing has been added.
Toward the United Front is available in a library edition from and in paperback from Haymarket Books for $55 and in a library hardback edition from Brill Academic Publishers for $283. — John Riddell
Review by Alexander Marshall
John Riddell here begins bringing to a close an epic project of over ten years duration – the publication in English of the entire proceedings of the Third International, or Comintern, in Lenin’s time. The very expansion of the Comintern itself is reflected in the increasing scale of each volume in this series. The minutes of the First Congress edited and published by Riddell in 1987 slipped into a single book; the proceedings of the second congress already took two volumes, and the proceedings printed here of the fourth congress occupy a mammoth single hardback volume of over a thousand pages.
This growing escalation reflected both the expanding membership of the Comintern itself, and the rapidly expanding scale of the issues it discussed, with the Second Congress of 1920 being marked by the input of Asian as well as European revolutionaries for the first time, and a full consideration of the colonial question.
The full proceedings of the Third Congress, which occupied a critical transitional period in 1921 between continued Bolshevik hopes for a world revolution, still a theme of the Second Congress in 1920, and the acceptance of capitalist stabilization after Versailles broadly embedded in the present volume, still await full editing by Riddell, but the publication of these is promised imminently. The closure of this epic publication effort will also mark the end what was in many ways the height of the Comintern’s international activity in an annual congress format; the next Comintern Congress, the Fifth, followed only in 1924, and the Sixth Congress in 1928. The occurrence of more irregular congresses (the seventh, and last, came in 1935) reflected both the declining role of world revolution in Soviet foreign policy, and the increasing Stalinization of the Comintern itself.
‘Immense and masterful effort’
Riddell has here pulled off an immense and masterful editorial effort, comparing past publications of these proceedings in the four main languages of the Comintern – English, French, German and Russian. As he notes in his introduction, whilst there are few major discrepancies between various versions of the proceedings, translations in one language often clarify meanings which are lost in other languages. The process of comparing past publications of the full proceedings has in the case of this edition also involved consulting a Serbo-Croation text from 1981 (57-8).
The work involved in clarifying the differences between texts, providing more accurate annotation, and correcting the misspelling of names and providing relevant biographical details is immense, and should earn the gratitude of generations of scholars for many years to come. The work of the Fourth Congress also embraced a number of key themes of critical interest to anybody attempting to study the history of the Comintern. For the sake of brevity I shall try to summarize only a few of the main ones here.
The Congress featured the last appearance of Lenin at any meeting of the Comintern. Compared to his previous addresses, Lenin’s input at this congress was extremely limited, and his general posture and level of analysis that of a man who was already gravely sick. The Second Congress of 1920 had marked the birth of Lenin’s advocacy of what later became termed a united front policy, via his advocacy in his famous pamphlet Left-Wing Communism that European Communist party members participate in bourgeois parliaments and form pragmatic alliances with Trade Union leaders.
Lenin’s input at the Fourth Congress, the first to have to consider the rise of fascism in a European context, lacked any comparable strategic direction. His warning that the resolution of the Third Congress on the organisational structure of the Communist Parties was too much based on Russian experience (303-4) has been interpreted by some as an advocacy of greater plurality and tolerance within the Communist movement. However the actual wording of Lenin’s statement remains ambiguous; whilst advocating that all Communists must now in practice sit down and study ‘from scratch’, in practice he also stated bluntly that the ‘first task’ to be addressed is that the ‘foreign comrades’ do not in fact understand the resolution, not that the resolution itself was wrong.
The danger as Lenin saw it was that foreign parties ended up merely ‘hanging [the resolution] in a corner like an icon and praying to it. Nothing will be achieved that way. They must assimilate part of the Russian experience.’ (305) Given therefore both his ongoing firm advocacy of the relevance and leading role of Russian experience but also the need for better translation and understanding, both Stalinists and anti-Stalinists were scarcely hindered from interpreting what was in practice going to be Lenin’s final advice to the international communist movement in ways that served their own particular interests.
United front policy
The congress was also notable for its discussions and resolution on a united front policy. The final resolution of the congress, ‘On the Tactics of the Comintern’, fully endorsed Communist parties, with permission of the Comintern, entering into alliance with non-Communist workers’ parties and workers’ organisations. The theology around determining the precise class character of a given government or movement however left in practice much ground open to dispute and reinterpretation; the extremely qualified and conditional endorsement of broad alliances sowed the seeds of political sectarianism amongst the left almost everywhere.
The resolution itself was also fiercely debated and discussed; the amendments made to the definition of a workers’ government underlined the ongoing difficulty of creating a typology of acceptable coalitions. Polish delegates openly opposed the united front policy on the basis of their own experiences of attempting to put it into action (238); the Italian delegation led by Bordiga, the group perhaps most familiar with the rise of fascism and its appeal to the working class, were equally critical about the united front tactic in particular, and far more pessimistic about the possibility of attaining power by that route in general.
Finally, the proceedings of the congress underline in general the challenge of operationalizing what was intended to become a world communist party. Bukharin noted the divisions within the French delegation (206) and condemned the actions of the French Communists as terribly passive and disorganised. His speech throughout, scolding many of the European parties, was noted for its resort to humour, provoking what appear to be genuine and frequent gales of laughter. Reading Bukharin’s rather witty analysis makes Stalin’s later resolve to utterly exterminate Bukharin himself all the more poignant in retrospect.
However Bukharin also endeavoured to underline a serious point in his speech – namely, the inability of the assembled delegates to conduct a genuinely strategic, international analysis, and their tendency to revert to discussing the situation in their own countries instead. This remains a challenge not without its lessons to the left today. This magnificent volume offers one very fruitful route to consider again the correct strategy for the left to take in today’s own era of crisis and potential transition.
A review by John Riddell of Zinoviev and Martov: Head to Head in Halle, edited by Ben Lewis and Lars T. Lih.(1)
The Thrilla in Halle! A ringside seat, just for you, as Gregory Zinoviev (in the red trunks) and Julius Martov (his are pale pink) duke it out before delegates of the 700,000-member Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany (USPD). Read more…
Here are two comments to this website that bear on Pham Binh’s article, “Change the World Without Taking Power, Marxist Edition.” The first, by Australian socialist Peter Boyle, takes up how socialists view engagement in parliamentary elections. The second comment, by Panagiotis Sotiris of the Greek anti-capitalist left front ANTARSYA, takes up a statement that I made in a March 12 presentation on workers’ governments, a video of which has just been published online. My comment on ANTARSYA was based on its April election statement.
Engagement in elections is not alternative to building the movement
In the following guest article, Pham Binh argues that the working people of Greece, now engaged in a titanic struggle against capitalist austerity, should seek governmental power. His text, reprinted with permission from The North Star, continues a discussion on this website in January 2012, in which Binh participated. Further comments are welcome.–JR
By Pham Binh. The Weekly Worker’s Eddie Ford wrote richly detailed and engaging overviews of a political earthquake in Greece that is rattling international investors and European governments alike: SYRIZA, a radical left coalition, may soon control the Greek government. Read more…
Some familiar issues were addressed with originality and new vigour at the Historical Materialism conference in Toronto on May 11–13. Attendance at the three sessions on revolutionary history, organized by Abigail Bakan (Queen’s University), ranged between 30 and 75 of the 400 conference participants.
Historical Materialism Book Series has just published a complete translation of the proceedings and resolutions of the Communist International’s Fourth World Congress (1922).* To mark the occasion, Historical Materialism’s May 11–13 Toronto conference will feature three panels presenting new ‘translations’ of revolutionary history in the Communist International era. Read more…