The “Communist” International against the World Proletariat

Lenin and Trotsky ideologized the October Revolution as the beginning of the world revolution. However, this was definitely not the case. So far, after all the historical experience, the global social revolution can consist only of a continuous series of destruction of national States. So, how could the forming and development of Soviet Russia as a State capitalist nation could be a part of the world revolution?! Objectively, Soviet Russia has always been a part of world capital and, accordingly, an enemy of the world proletariat – regardless of the intra-capitalist bickering between the world bourgeoisie and the State capitalist bureaucracy of Soviet Russia. Thus, the orientation of Lenin and Trotsky towards the world revolution was completely ideological and socially demagogic, i.e. it was about self-deception and misleading of the world proletariat.

The “Communist” International as part of the global social reaction

The social-demagogic megalomania of the Russian “Communist” Party (Bolsheviks) has led to the fact that it imagined to be the vanguard of not only the Russian proletariat, but the entire world. The result was the founding on March 2nd, 1919, in Moscow of the “Communist” International (Comintern, 3rd International). This International consisted of newly set up “Communist” parties of different countries, which were radical splits from the Social Democracy. The Russian “Communist” Party (Bolsheviks) was from the very beginning the dominant nucleus of this International. At that time, R“C”P (B) was already a political organization that organized the State capitalist exploitation of the Russian proletariat and in conjunction with this it was part of the global capitalist counterrevolution. How could the International, in which this party played the leading role, not be counter-revolutionary?! Thus, the “Communist” International from the very beginning was part of the global social reaction.

However, according to the will of Lenin and Trotsky, the Comintern was also to become the vanguard of the world revolution that they expected. This despite the fact that for both Bolshevik leaders the “world revolution” was nothing else than an uninterrupted chain of “October Revolutions” all over the world. In fact, at the end of the First World War, revolutionary upheavals occurred not only in Russia, but also in Germany, Austria, Hungary and Italy. Nevertheless, in these countries the revolutionary situation did not lead neither to the victory of a real social revolution, nor to the formation of “communist”-party-led State capitalist regimes. A genuine social revolution did not take place in these countries because the bourgeoisie in these countries, unlike Russia in 1917, was too strong, and the proletariat was too weak and did not possess the necessary experience. In addition, in capitalist industrial States, an independent seizure of power by the “communist” party through a coup d’état was impossible, because unlike Russia in 1917, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat there were already both main classes of the society, and there was no free space for the action of petty-bourgeois radical professional politicians. Thus, an independent “communist”-party-led seizure of power against the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in highly developed industrial countries was impossible. Even if in the West one of the “C”P, taking advantage of excessive weakening of the bourgeoisie and with the existence of a class-fighting proletariat oriented towards the “communist” party, could have accomplished an “October Revolution”, this victory would be short-lived. Because “October” would be followed by “Cronstadt”. However, Cronstadt in a highly developed industrial country would most likely lead to the victory of the social revolution and would be the beginning of a world revolution.

Thus, the policy of the “communist” parties within the Third International in the highly developed industrial countries under the command of Lenin and Trotsky was not only socially reactionary, but, in comparison with the objectives, absolutely unsuccessful. For example, the “communist” party bureaucracy in East Germany managed to seize political power only thanks to the victory of Soviet imperialism in World War II. By the time of Stalin’s regime for the sake of his then anti-fascist-democratic accomplices in the imperialist World War II he had since long liquidated the “Communist” International, a contradictory legacy of the early Lenin’s and Trotsky’s Bolshevik regime, consisting of ideology and reality. This was in 1943. Before that, the “Communist” International still had provided a great service to Soviet imperialism in that it supported an alliance between the USSR and private capitalist nations against other private capitalist nations. So, from 1939 to 1941 the Comintern defended the pact between Hitler and Stalin, and later the alliance between the USSR and Western democracies against fascism. The “Communist” International as an instrument of Soviet imperialism was an abominable warmonger and a foe of the global proletariat.

Source in Russian: «Коммунистический» интернационал против мирового пролетариата
Original Source in German: Die „Kommunistische“ Internationale als Teil der globalen Sozialreaktion