The Programme of the Communist International

I.

The 5th World Congress of the Communist International adopted a program in its session that essentially summarizes the theoretical and practical line pursued by the Soviet government thus far. The starting point is the rallying of the revolutionary proletariat to bring about the Soviet Union. This is also characteristically expressed by designating "the Soviet Union as the organizing center of the proletarian world movement" and presenting the "November Revolution as the first link in the chain of the proletarian world revolution." The policy of Russia, as it has emerged in the course of development following the November Revolution, forms the basis of the revolutionary struggle on an international scale. All the particular Russian conditions are peculiarities of the development toward communism. Their slavish imitation is the only possible revolutionary tactic. The experiences of the Russian Revolution, and especially those arising from the takeover of a predominantly agrarian-organized capitalist country, are directly applied to the major industrial countries. The proletarian revolution is thereby degraded to an agrarian problem. Just as the Second International cannot think beyond Western Europe and views the corruption of the Western European working class as an entirely natural, given, and to-be-maintained attitude with all means, the Communist International proceeds by prioritizing the Eastern European and closely related Asian issues. Both pursue world history based on the one-sided orientation of their narrower and narrowest spheres of interest. The large-scale industrial development of continental Europe, built on colonial exploitation, and the Eastern European-Asian development, which seeks to free itself from dependence on European capital, point in entirely different directions, whose opposition naturally arises from their attitude toward national capital. The Second International is strongly tied to the imperialist tendencies of its national capitalisms. It seeks to increasingly involve the proletariat in the colonial exploitation of its ruling class and must therefore deploy it for its colonial policy. On the other hand, the Third International organizes the proletariat of the so-called colonial and semi-colonial countries into a united front against the "imperialist predatory states." It therefore demands the "right of peoples to self-determination." In doing so, it aligns with this peculiar imperialist formula, which international capital needed and successfully implemented to dismantle the German and Austrian Central European bloc. It is stated verbatim:

"The right of peoples to self-determination, which also includes the right to complete secession of the state. This principle is obligatory both as a demand against the bourgeois state, where it serves as a weapon against imperialism, and for the regime of the proletarian dictatorship, where it serves as a means to overcome the national mistrust cultivated by bourgeois rule over centuries."

The Communist International, in consequence of this view, also demands "the liberation of the colonies and the support of all colonial movements against imperialism," thereby promoting the establishment of new national states. It does not call for a unified struggle of the proletariat of the motherland with the colonial proletariat for joint action against the capital that exploits both, a merger that would be the best foundation for a truly international proletarian policy. This would ensure that the necessary connection between raw material and industrial countries is maintained. The united front would also facilitate the implementation of the revolution, as the resistance of the national states newly created by this policy would not first have to be broken by the revolutionary proletariat. The rise of former colonies and semi-colonies to independently operating national states and beyond that to participants in the exploitation of their former masters will again corrupt the proletariat of these countries and force it into the ideology of the Second International. We are aware that this era will only last a short time. The best example of this view is the development of America, whose proletariat is the most counterrevolutionary among the industrial proletariat of the world.

Maintaining the connection with the motherlands of capitalism is, given this attitude, a matter of course. It is stated in the guidelines that, despite the principled enmity between capitalist and proletarian states, "compromises in the field of foreign policy are permissible and sometimes even obligatory (trade relations with foreign countries, loans, concession policies, participation in general conferences, and other forms of agreements, excluding military ones)." The necessity for such agreements is justified by the revolution occurring only in stages and the resulting coexistence of capitalist and proletarian states. Here, the old mechanistic and petit-bourgeois conception of the course of the revolution resurfaces—the national revolution as the basis for its international implementation. In the era of free competition, when global economic interconnectedness was not yet the basis for national economic life, such a view could still claim a semblance of legitimacy. The example of the French Revolution still heavily overshadowed historical perspectives. The constant emergence of new nations, the lack of international unity, and the even weaker cooperation hardly allowed the idea of unified, powerful action by the working class to arise. On the other hand, the carteling, syndication, and trustification of capital on an international basis had not yet progressed far enough to necessitate a proletarian counter-movement operating on the same basis as the unified international front of capital. However, the development that began with the World War divided the world into a few capitalist camps whose conditions of existence are almost identical. This is most evident in the course of the general world crisis. While subjective conditions may still differ, their alignment is happening incredibly quickly. Precisely preventing the formation of new states is an essential promotion of the revolutionary struggle. Imperialism is not defeated by replacing old masters with new ones and even holding the stirrups for them.

The elevation of a system of "proletarian" and "capitalist" states coexisting is practically unfeasible. The best example of the absurdity of this theory is Russia. The "proletarian" Russia exists only in the imagination of its founders. The economic system is purely capitalist, particularly the distribution of the most important monopoly, land. The Soviet government must increasingly take into account the capitalist attitude of the peasantry. It must make peasant agriculture profitable. This is only possible by granting it all possibilities to exploit its monopoly position. The detachment of peasant agriculture from the previously enforced economy deals a severe blow to nationalized industry and gives a strong boost to private capital. The principled enmity against capitalist states is expressed by the Soviet government committing in all treaties to cease communist propaganda and increasingly complying with this obligation. The proletarian state, according to the methods of Soviet Russia, is an untenable compromise between state and private capitalism. Proletarian dictatorship and a mixed economic capitalism are mutually exclusive and bear no relation to each other. Prussian state capitalism and its "socialist" successor from the early years of the German Republic clearly show the way.

This Russian development is supposed to serve as the model for the transitional form to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The enumeration of the fundamental measures and the guidelines to be followed show most clearly under what enormous consideration for the ideology of the petit bourgeoisie and its property notions the transformation—the expropriation of the expropriators—is to take place. The Gotha and Erfurt programs are extremely radical by comparison.

The following are demanded:

1. Expropriation of large industrial enterprises, transport and communication systems, electricity works, etc.

2. Proletarian nationalization of large landholdings, their transfer to the administration of the organs of the proletarian dictatorship, their collective management with the help of agricultural proletarians drawn into the economic administration of state estates; the transfer of part of the large landholdings, particularly those worked as leased land, into the hands of the poor and partly also the middle peasantry (the extent of the land to be transferred to the peasantry is determined both by economic expediency and by the necessity of neutralizing the peasantry, thus by its socio-political weight), the organization of agricultural reclamation credits, the fight against usury and land speculation.

Instead of the expropriation of large landholdings and the takeover of production by the industrial proletariat with the involvement of agricultural workers, a new layer of private owners is created, and precisely the land-hungry small peasant and the agricultural worker striving for their own plot are the fiercest opponents of a proletarian revolution. As long as the revolutionary movement aligns with their interests and not only frees them from the yoke of large landowners but also elevates them at their expense, they will go along with the working class. The idea of buying the peasantry with such dangerous gifts has already been described by Rosa Luxemburg as extremely dangerous. The KAPD proposed a completely different path in its program to ensure food supply, rejecting cooperation by sharply recognizing the ideology of the peasantry. The strongest counterrevolutionary force must be economically neutralized first by the proletarian revolution. This is particularly possible because agriculture is becoming increasingly industrialized, so that land cultivation will soon fall exclusively to the industrial proletariat. The peasant is only an unavoidable or difficult-to-eliminate factor in states that are not yet economically at the full height of industrial development. The task of the coming revolution cannot be the distribution of land to individuals but, on the contrary, the industrial appropriation of all available land by the industrial proletariat. The measure of the scope lies in the ability to mobilize the necessary forces for the implementation of this plan during the struggles.

Priority must be given to ensuring work in the industry of agricultural machinery and the fertilizer industry. The peasant must be shown that he is dispensable, that the industrial proletariat can manage on its own. Then the peasant will fall in line and support the strengthening of the communist movement. He must know that the satisfaction of his livelihood depends solely on his stance toward the proletariat. Instead of this clear position, the Communist International intends for the proletariat to guarantee the peasant an economically better situation than he had under the previous order. His capitalist oppression is to end, and he is to be elevated to master and exploiter. Reclamation credits, liberation from usury and land speculation, and an improved capitalism are promised to him by the communist world order.

The love for the little man, the longing for the goodwill of the petit bourgeoisie, is the best sign of a lack of confidence in the proletariat. Every revolutionary must be aware that the petit bourgeoisie is the strongest pillar of the counterrevolution and, due to its intermediate position, must remain so. Reconciliation with the proletarian revolution is not a matter of money but of social status, which alone distinguishes it from the proletariat. It would rather lick the aristocrat’s boots than be patronized by the proletariat. Promises that the interests of small savers and depositors will be secured during the "proletarian nationalization of banks" are of no avail. The reversal of the capitalist principle "hang the small, let the big go free" is entirely characteristic of the Communist International’s attitude. The little people are truly not to be deprived of their "possessions and property." This is not a phrase but a well-founded concession that leaves the petit bourgeoisie the means for capitalist development. Preserving the petit bourgeoisie means preserving the capitalist economy. Capital needs this intermediate layer just as much as the worker aristocracy. However, it can only dominate the proletariat if it succeeds in creating as many intermediate layers and gradations within the proletariat as possible. In the course of its development, capital increasingly grinds down the middle classes as far as their economic situation is concerned. However, it grants them a social position so that ideologically, they stand outside the proletariat. The task of the revolutionary proletariat is to demonstrate to the petit bourgeois that within the capitalist economic order, they differ in no way from the proletarian and that their existence is only tolerated by big capital as long as it is needed. The behavior of German capital in the post-war period is particularly characteristic. It has shifted the entire consequences of its failed imperialist speculation onto the working class and, secondarily, onto the petit bourgeoisie. It has shamelessly pursued the expropriation of small capitalists, with the result that today the petit bourgeoisie follows big capital more blindly than ever. This feat was only achieved through an extraordinarily skillful ideological policy. Experience repeatedly shows that the petit bourgeoisie feels irrevocably bound to capital. The Russian White Guards recruit most heavily from these strata. Only the Russian peasantry, the actual beneficiary of the November Revolution, defended "its" achievements and, in the course of development, managed to seize all power. The "NEP" is its legitimate child.

Even in industry, the program of the Communist International stipulates that nationalization should generally not extend to small and medium-sized enterprises. Kautsky’s program of very gradual progress is followed most faithfully in this regard. The only difference is that these measures are placed in the era before the actual dictatorship, thus inserting a small intermediate stage, that of the proletarian state. In contrast, the KAPD’s program rightly emphasizes that during the struggle and for the initial period after victory, controlling the most essential economic elements is more important than their utilization through operation. It is aware that capital must be deprived of every opportunity to regain its economic position. It must be excluded from the economy in every form. Precisely the mistakes made in this regard in the German and Russian revolutions were the seeds of the current power of capital in both countries. The German revolution left the bourgeoisie its previous monopoly almost entirely intact. The stronger nationalization of transport and certain industries only led to private capital attempting to seize these state enterprises to an even greater extent than before. In Russia, nationalized industry, with its enormous bureaucratic apparatus, operates far less "efficiently" than private capital and is therefore increasingly displaced by it or must begin to operate according to so-called "commercial" principles. In both cases, private capital prevails.

The methods proposed here were largely followed by the Russian proletariat in the initial period after the revolution. However, it later had to increasingly resort to opportunistic methods because it could no longer sustain its initial consistent measures, as one of the essential prerequisites for transforming the November Revolution into a proletarian revolution was absent—namely, the support of the Western European proletariat. The Russian Revolution was, from the outset, a compromise between the revolutionary industrial proletariat and the land-hungry peasantry. The industrial proletariat was aware that it could only maintain its position if its industrial base expanded significantly. It was not capable of achieving this on its own. It hoped for the Central European revolution, for a union with a strong industrial proletariat with which it could jointly undertake land cultivation. However, it faced a tremendous disappointment in this expectation. The Western European proletariat completely failed, and the consequence was that the united front with the peasantry collapsed, and the peasantry began to dominate. The Russian rulers had to take these realities into account. Since they, as "Marxists," could not be mistaken, they had to make a virtue out of necessity and declared the initial post-revolutionary methods as "war communism," which had to give way to true communism. This is characterized by the great variety of economic forms, which in turn create a "market connection." It then becomes the task of the proletariat to act as the regulator of this "market." Father State, this petit-bourgeois utopia with the proletariat at the helm, once again becomes the savior in distress. "Through market relations and through competition with backward economic types, as well as with the layers of the new bourgeoisie, merchants, capitalists, etc., constantly produced by them, the proletariat must ensure the advancement of these economic forms." The victorious proletariat in zealous competition with the bourgeoisie—this is the very embodiment of 51 percent socialization. It fosters a new bourgeoisie so that it can fight against it. There must be struggle. The proletariat must not only sow the dragon’s teeth but also ensure that iron men spring from the seeds. It is sad but true: adaptation to the market inevitably brings with it the application of capitalist forms and methods of economic activity (economic calculation, monetary payment forms, etc.), but these capitalist forms in state enterprises are filled with anti-capitalist content. Beelzebub in divine skin—this transformation act is worthy of a Jesuit, but not of a proletarian-thinking communist. It could and can only serve to conceal genuine capitalist forms. It is the basest deception ever perpetrated with the help of Marxist ideology. The climax, however, is that, given the remnants of capitalist influence and the heterogeneity of the working class, a temporary application of capitalist methods to this or that extent is necessary (premium systems, piece wages, etc.). All that is needed is to construct the opposite sign, and the proletariat believes in the proletarian state with capitalist methods just as capital believes in the golden calf. The bookseller with communist literature and the lawyer with communist practice are no longer capitalists either, even if they work and calculate capitalistically. We do not want to change the signs but the system. Without abolishing the system, its effects cannot be eliminated either. The absurdity of cell formation has been sufficiently demonstrated by the KPD’s attempt in the proletarian trade unions.

II.

In the ideology of the Third International, the transformation of existing petit-bourgeois organizations, which were created as defensive measures against big capital, into associations with a proletarian character plays an extraordinarily significant role. According to the views of the Comintern, the takeover of production by the proletariat occurs entirely mechanically in the literal sense. It is not considered at all that only the most advanced forms of the capitalist economy are suitable for such a takeover, as they are already completely depersonalized, that is, stripped of their individual property character. They have already become a mechanism in which the proletariat occupies a dominant position, consciously performing social labor as a mass. In contrast, in lower forms, the labor and initiative of the entrepreneur, and in peasant enterprises also of the family, are decisive factors. The organizations created by these groups are precisely intended to preserve this character and prevent the collapse of this form through organizational consolidation. The cooperatives of capitalist producers are, for this reason, completely unusable for utilizing their organizational structure to build a communist society. They cannot be eliminated through "socialist large-scale production" but must be integrated into it. It is nonsense to assume that they will inevitably "grow into" the economic system of the proletarian dictatorship. According to the Comintern’s view, the prerequisite is "a sensible economic policy." This consists in ensuring that "no restrictions whatsoever are imposed on the individualistic motives of peasant labor." The "NEP" is the practical application of this theory. It offers the peasant a free market and frees him from the forced economy in which he was held by "war communism." Precisely the peasant masses in the cooperatives have thereby become the ruling class in the Soviet Republic. The proletariat in Russia has not only failed to expropriate them but has even enriched them to an enormous extent. The conclusion that the proletariat must draw from the Russian development is that it must not relinquish control of the land monopoly. Capital recognizes the enormous importance of agriculture for economic development, especially in highly industrial areas, and therefore seeks to bind it to itself with all its might through significant concessions. Following the Russian model, the proletariat is supposed to try to outdo capital in this regard and hand over the land to the peasants. This policy can only serve to strengthen the already strong property instinct of the peasants. Their opposition to the "oppressive" proletariat must increase day by day as their prosperity grows. If the proletariat does not yield, as is the case in Russia, a bloody confrontation is likely to occur soon. The peasantry tolerates the communist flag only as long as it considers it compatible with its economic interests. It is the same game as the stance of the German Social Democrats toward big capital. The German Revolution was liquidated more quickly precisely because it did not carry out any expropriation at all. In contrast, the Russian Revolution proceeded radically—except for the expropriation of the peasants. Among them, large landholdings were divided up as compensation. However, this also sealed the fate of the Russian Revolution. From this capitalist island, the attack of capital originated and will be stubbornly continued until the last "proletarian achievement" is destroyed.

Historical experience thus teaches the proletariat that it cannot and must not have allies whose material basis is existence on a capitalist foundation. An immediate and complete expropriation of all non-proletarian strata is, of course, not feasible. However, their division and organizational destruction are both necessary and possible. The principle of "divide et impera" (divide and rule) applies most in critical times when the struggle with the enemy is not yet concluded. Just as the proletariat must suppress the capitalist press if it wants to survive, it must also smash the organizations of its opponents. It must prevent the opponents from confronting it as a unified entity. A right to coalition must exist only for the proletariat. One will even proceed to destroy trade union organizations, for example, those of the "technical white-collar workers." This also justifies the idea of the AAU (General Workers’ Union). The sabotage by technical white-collar workers, which played an extraordinary role in Soviet Russia, would not have been possible to such an extent if the workplace had formed the cell for the economic organization of the proletariat. The trade union division by profession, as favored by the previous system, would have lost much of its appeal through the formation of Unions [AAU]. Moreover, this would also promote the formation of a united proletarian front, as the separation by profession fosters the cultivation of a particular class consciousness among individual strata. The clerk considers himself superior to the worker, and the printer feels like an aristocrat compared to the street sweeper. Each profession has its special interests and valuation. It fights only for itself.

The issue of technical white-collar workers, which played such an enormous role at the beginning of the Russian Revolution and also led to significant concessions, would be considerably alleviated if this category of workers were forced to fight alongside the rest of the working class against capital. This compulsion to solidarity would arise from the united front of the workers. Integration—and not the path of winning them over through corruptive means—can be the goal of the movement. However, the Third International takes the latter path, demanding that the proletariat carefully avoid all actions that could cause economic harm to these white-collar workers and especially to those strata that have already suffered due to the war. Alongside this, it recommends ideological influence "through the perspectives of cultural socialist development." In doing so, it again secures a privileged position for the petit bourgeoisie and strengthens class consciousness. Technical white-collar workers will never voluntarily give up their privileged position for ideological reasons, such as feeling connected to the proletariat. Rather, they know that the working class will dispense with them as soon as it has trained suitable forces from its own ranks. However, it will be extremely difficult to place the newly trained forces in a worse position than the bourgeois white-collar workers. They will soon form a front with them. This can only be prevented if equality with the workers is established from the outset and the existence of technical white-collar workers is only secured if they unconditionally make themselves available. Sabotage cannot simply be eliminated through generous payment. Only the recognition of the iron will of the proletariat and the ruthless blocking of a return to the past can force them to abandon their resistance. The experiences of the German Republic best demonstrate the effects of winning over through material advantages. The Republic—financial capital—could not induce the "experts" of the petit bourgeoisie to defect because their social devaluation necessarily had to occur due to the further development of big capital. This social devaluation means "sinking" to the level of the proletariat, which they had previously placed themselves above ideologically. The position as an intermediate layer was the lifeblood of the petit bourgeoisie and, at the same time, the springboard, the marshal’s baton they believed reserved for themselves. The claim of the worker aristocracy, particularly trade union officials, to the honor of being servants of the state is, for them, impermissible competition from crude upstarts. They would rather serve the old than the new bourgeoisie. As upstarts themselves, they despise other upstarts; only the old glory, that is, the stagnation of economic development, can preserve their position. Instinctively, they therefore fight against everything "new." The big capitalist is less narrow-minded than his petit-bourgeois follower and imitator. Therefore, the petit bourgeoisie is the most dangerous enemy of the working class, one that must not be neutralized but, on the contrary, subjected to particularly strict control from the outset. Big capital is defenseless without the petit bourgeoisie. It also lacks the mediator to the proletariat, namely the social-democratic element. As much as the allies of social democracy fight the "reactionary" petit bourgeoisie, they only want to change the sign and take its position. Their idea is to eliminate the old allies of capital and replace them with a reformist layer emerging from the working class itself, one that corresponds to the transition to large-scale industrial development. Big capital fends off these intrusive lackeys as much as possible and fuels the conflict at will. Unity between both strata exists only against the revolutionary proletariat, which must expropriate both groups if it is to fulfill its historical task. Cooperation goes so far that the "old" petit bourgeoisie provides its ally with technical and military experts for the struggle. Any relaxation of the petit bourgeoisie’s position thus endangers the revolution. The German November "uprising" most strongly highlights the enormous dangers caused by neutralizing the petit bourgeoisie.

A peasant revolution directed against the feudal system does not deprive the petit bourgeoisie of its basis. A revaluation does take place, but it does not rob it of its socially elevated position; it only shifts the dependency relationship. Even this restructuring occurs with enormous resistance because the external communist form conceals the true character. How much stronger must the counter-movement be in a distinctly revolutionary uprising that consciously eliminates the middle class and the worker aristocracy? The working class is therefore left to itself in the era of social revolution. It has no allies and must not "buy" any.

In sparing the capitalist ideology toward the petit bourgeoisie, the Communist International knows no bounds. Even religion must be preserved for the people. The program states verbatim: "The fight against religion must be conducted with all necessary tact and caution, especially among those strata of the working population where religion was previously deeply rooted in everyday life." This demand best reveals the typically peasant and semi-colonial character of the Third International. In Russia and Asia (Turkey, China, India, etc.), the religious question is inseparable from the national question. Just as the priest sympathized with the Russian peasants against tsarism because he, too, belonged to the serfs of the feudal lord, the church’s stance in the liberation of national capital from imperialist oppression is also on the side of nationalism. The church, especially the lower clergy, hopes for a significantly elevated position in the "constitutional" state. However, it will offer the fiercest resistance to the social revolution, which means its destruction. Tolerance or a lenient attitude will change nothing about this. The parts of the working class still under the church’s spell consciously or unconsciously sabotage the struggle of the revolutionary element. The proletariat will have to get used to the idea that the revolution must be carried out in struggle against individual, backward strata. The clear front of understanding, not the emotional united front, can be the bearer and leader of the revolution. Concealing and glossing over contradictions cannot help overcome the difficulties of the beginning. The revolution is not a matter of diplomacy or more or less skillful compromises with opponents. The phrase "divide et impera" (divide and rule) does not apply because the opponents simply cannot be divided without surrendering to the ally. It is precisely the nature of the social revolution that the victory of the working class can only be achieved by the working class itself. The classless society, which the proletariat strives for, knows no exploitation, no stratification, no gradation, in contrast to previous economic systems. The overthrow of a ruling class merely changed the master and brought a new gradation in the dependency relationship. It was therefore entirely natural that, at the beginning of every revolution, the entourage of the new exploiter class consisted of economically very differently interested (heterogeneous) but united elements in their opposition to the previous system. The proletariat has no such allies because its idea demands not only formal equality—the banner of every revolution—but also material equality.

The path to the dictatorship of the proletariat is thus mapped out. All intermediate entities fall away and must fall away. The form of unification and the basis for struggle can only be the council system in a structure "from bottom to top." The path proposed by the Comintern is the old KPD slogan. The communist party must "bring the large mass organizations of the proletariat under its influence (trade unions, cooperatives, factory councils, workers’ councils, etc.). It sets up a whole series of intermediate solutions and partial demands," etc.

Of interest is only the party’s tactic in the revolutionary situation. "The struggle is subject to the rules of the art of war and presupposes an attack plan (determination of place, time, etc.), assuming the offensive character of the operations." Putschism, whose failure for revolutionary uprisings experience has sufficiently proven, continues to form the basis. Struggle between labor and capital. The revolution is organized, the strike is set, mobilization is ordered, the parade is held, and then the march begins. The living character of the movement, which alone guarantees success, is thereby killed. The open field battle, not the guerrilla fight, is the tactic. The impossibility of such "preparations" is evident from previous experience. The sole quagmire of informants that the KPD represents shows that the bourgeoisie controls the military apparatus of the "revolutionary working class" and determines the hour of the strike.

The considerations presented here represent only a small excerpt of the opposition that separates us from the Third International. Many important parts are not addressed because they have already been subjected to critical examination in the question of tactics and will further be discussed, among other things, in the analysis of the death crisis.