Hugo Eberlein 1929
Source: Communist International, Vol. 6 No. 9-10. April, 1929, pp. 436-442;
Transcribed: by Revolution's Newsstand.
WHEN, ten years ago, the representatives of the world proletariat met in Moscow to found the Communist International, the Spartakusbund had fought its first heroic battle against Noske’s November republic. It had not succeeded in changing the imperialist into the civil war, in crowning the revolution with victory. The young Party, founded on 30th December, 1918, evidenced all the symptoms of the “infantile disorder.” The Spartakusbund, which had broken completely with reformism during the war, was wholeheartedly and vigorously in favour of the Russian revolution. It was prepared to take the road of Bolshevism, in which, however, it saw only action, armed insurrection, a life and death struggle against reformism, against its governmental power and its white guard mercenaries. The real kernel of Bolshevism, the Leninist theory of the role of a revolutionary party and its relation to the masses, the strategy and tactics which lead to armed insurrection, was, it is true, understood by many members of the Bund, but the great mass of workers belonging to it, ready to face death for the revolution, were bound in no strict organisation governed by the Leninist theory of the revolution and the Party. Early in 1919, the Communist Party was not a party in the Bolshevik sense, in the sense of the revolutionary idea of the Party which has since become the common property of Communists. History had not yet given it time to study the experiences of the Russian revolutions. A few days after its foundation, the threat of counter-revolution forced it to take up the struggle. Without the blood shed by the Spartakists for the German proletariat in 1919, a German Communist Party would have been impossible. Without the lessons of the Spartakist struggles, the revolutionary masses of Germany would never have realised the necessity for a Bolshevik Party. Lenin’s remark that the workers learn chiefly by their own experience was justified in the foundation of the C.P.G. At the beginning there was no centre keeping all the sections of the Spartakusbund together and directing their actions. Connections with provincial organisations were very weak. The great increase of revolutionary workers in the Spartakus organisations meant that, in the fire of the struggle, organisational unity could not be maintained and strengthened. Every member bore a tremendous burden of work and responsibility, which was increased because of the lack of any concrete political plan for carrying on the fight.
So it happened that when, early in January, the invitation arrived from Moscow to send delegates to a preparatory conference to discuss the situation in the international, the provincial organisations could not be consulted as to the delegates, nor give them the support required by the importance of the conference. As far as I know, there are no documents relating to that period, and I have to rely on my memory for the events which led up to my being sent as a delegate.
The invitation to the C.P.G. to take part in a preliminary conference on the question of the foundation of a new international arrived in Berlin early in January, 1919. As far as I remember, the invitation was addressed to the Central Committee, to Rosa and Karl. One night, as I was accompanying Rosa from the editorial offices of “Rote Fahne” to her house in the southern district, she told me that the invitation had come, and discussed the question of who should be sent. She and Karl Liebknecht were not to be considered, for it was impossible for them to leave Berlin. Apart from that, Rosa thought that the C.P.G. should be represented at this Conference by a German comrade whose political judgment would not be influenced by previous disagreements with Russian comrades. She referred now and again to the differences of opinion between herself and Leo Jogisches, and the Bolsheviks. Rosa suggested that I should go.
During our conversation, she referred to the importance of the conference in the following terms: the Bolsheviks will probably propose that a new international should be founded immediately, even if only a few delegates turn up. The foundation of the Communist International is obviously and unconditionally necessary, but it should not be premature. The Communist International should only be definitely founded when, in the revolutionary mass movements sweeping over almost all the countries of Europe, Communist Parties have arisen. It is also particularly necessary to choose the exact time of its foundation so as to accelerate the separation of the revolutionary masses from the United Social-Democratic Party. Rosa therefore suggested that at the Conference I should propose the establishment of a commission consisting of representatives of the different countries, and that the inaugural Congress should take place some time between Easter and Whitsun.
Three days later Rosa and Karl were dead. We all felt the pain of the irreparable loss of our leaders-there were no discussions among us in those days. Then there was a meeting in the Kochstrasse, in which Jogisches, Karski, Pieck, Levi and Eberlein took part (Meyer was under arrest). I reported to the comrades my last conversation with Rosa, and Leo Jogisches, who shared her opinion, confirmed it. It was agreed that I should be delegate, on the unconditional mandate that I put forward the opinion of Rosa and Leo. A few days later there was another meeting which I did not attend, but Ernst Meyer was present. Shortly after I began the journey to Moscow. I travelled from the Charlottenburg station with Leviné, who was arrested at Eydtkuhnen. Machine-gun fire sounded at the Alexanderplatz.Spartakus was sending revolutionary greetings to the Communist International.
On my arrival in Moscow I had a personal interview with Lenin. I gave a detailed report on the situation in Western Europe, and carefully and patiently Lenin tried, from my description, to build up a picture of the position. He asked me a number of questions about the ideas and organisation of the Spartakusbund, its strength in the factories, its influence in the trade unions, the organisation of the armed insurrection in Berlin, etc. He seemed very pessimistic about the anti-parliamentary and anti-trade union decisions of the inaugural party congress, which he considered absolutely incorrect. When I told him the opinion of Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartakus centre on the question of founding the Comintern, he was not greatly surprised, and said that he had expected such an attitude. He discussed it as follows: from the tactical point of view, these arguments have something in them, but nevertheless the International must be founded immediately. The advancing revolutionary movement, the effect of the Russian revolution on the most advanced sections of the proletariat, the recognition by large numbers of workers of the bankruptcy of the Second International, and above all, the historical necessity of leading and coordinating the revolutionary action of the proletariat, made such a step essential. He added: “But I think it extraordinarily difficult to found the International without the agreement of the C.P.G.” He proposed that the question of foundation should be brought up towards the end of the conference. In the days before the opening of the conference, which only constituted itself a congress on the third day, there were a number of meetings with the Russian delegates to the Conference, in which comrade Bukharin particularly took active part, and which gave opportunity for a lively exchange of opinion. Positive results could only with difficulty be attained, for it was not my personal opinion, but my mandate and the possibility of Berlin agreeing, that counted. But during the whole time, Lenin did not doubt for a minute that the Spartakusbund would become a part of the new international, and that after its foundation differences of opinion would be only of an incidental character. Lenin and the whole Russian delegation considered the Spartakusbund as the most important and advanced revolutionary party in western Europe. This was expressed in the resolution on the “attitude to the various socialist tendencies and to the Berne Conference,” which contained the following passage:
“3. Communists. In the Second International, where they defended the Communist-Marxist attitude to the war and to the tasks of the proletariat (Stuttgart, 1907; Lenin-Luxemburg resolution), they remained minority. The left-radicals, (later the Spartakus group) in Germany, the Bolsheviks in Russia, the “tribunists” in Holland, the youth group in Sweden, the left wing of the youth international in a number of countries, formed the first basis of the new International. True to working class interests, they put forward, from the beginning of the war, the slogan of changing the imperialist war into a civil war. They have now constituted themselves as the Third International.”
In accordance with Lenin’s appreciation of the importance of the Spartakusbund, I was elected to all the Commissions and to the Conference Presidium. At Lenin’s suggestion, the question of the foundation of the International was not raised during the first days of the full sessions. On all questions, whether of the role of the Third International, its construction, or the tactics to be employed in western countries, such unanimity was displayed (in which I shared) that the “Spartakus debate” which was very short, had rather a formal than a political significance. I was, of course, obliged to give the position of our Central Committee. In the only printed report of the Conference (“The Foundation of the Third International,” First Conference of the Communist International held in Moscow from March 2-6th, 1919, Vienna, 1919), my speech is reported as follows:
“When the question as to whether the present assembly should be proclaimed as the conference of the International arose, only a few voices were heard against it, and the representative of the Spartakusbund expressed a doubt whether the time had arrived for the formation of the Third International. referred to the warning example of Zimmerwald and Kienthal, which gave a picture, not of unity, but of decay, and the organisation fell to pieces. The opinion of the German comrade was that the position of the yellow Berne International was not in itself sufficient reason for the foundation of the Communist International, which could only live on the support of the workers of all lands. As however, there was a unanimous vote (with one abstention) it was decided to constitute the conference as the Conference of the Communist International, and the German comrade could not but welcome it, and join it in the name of the German revolutionary proletariat.”
This report cannot lay claim to full correctness. [Comrade Eberlein’s contention needs historical examination. He himself is responsible for the correctness of the report. Ed.] Unfortunately there are no typewritten reports. But the printed report fails to give my personal statement that I was fully agreed with the conference, and that, had I a free hand, I should have voted for the immediate establishment of the Communist International. Lenin’s arguments had convinced me.
The difference between my opinion and my mandate was expressed by the fact that I did not vote against the resolution, but withheld my vote. Besides which I emphasised that the Spartakusbund recognised the necessity of founding the Communist International, but considered that the time then was, tactically, unfavourable. I certainly did not draw the parallel with Zimmerwald and Kienthal in that way, for it was contrary to my opinion. Nor did I use the words can only live.” This incorrect report was no doubt due to technical conditions, and to the fact that the speeches were not taken in shorthand, but, as it were, reconstructed. When I ended my speech with the statement that I was firmly convinced that the Spartakusbund would fully agree to the decision of the Congress, Lenin said to me, “We, too, were firmly convinced of that, otherwise we would not have determined on the immediate foundation of the International.”
Since Rosa Luxemburg had taken the real intellectual lead in the Spartakusbund, it is not surprising that its early relations with the C.I. corresponded in essentials to her political ideas.
Rosa Luxemburg, and our small circle had from the very beginning of the war realised that a break with the Second International was historically inevitable. That this declaration was not made earlier is in my opinion due to the fact that before the war there was no definite left fraction, and Karl Liebknecht the standard-bearer of the fight against opportunism, was irresolute in the first war weeks. Liebknecht’s attitude on the outbreak of war is well known. Although while hotly opposing the ratification of war credits within the Party and the Reichstag social-democratic fraction, he felt himself obliged to maintain discipline outside. Immediately after the outbreak of war, Rosa was considering the publication of a manifesto to the German workers which should include the question of the International. Why this was not done is told by comrade Markhlevsky (Karski):
“The war broke out and from the first day comrade Luxemburg started propaganda against the war. She thought that she would succeed in uniting a circle of German comrades to work in common. It seemed to her that it was first of all necessary to have a manifesto, signed by a number of comrades popular among the workers Jogisches immediately declared that it would be of no use, but still we made the attempt. But only seven answered Rosa’s invitation to meet at her house and discuss the question, and of these only two were prominent party members, Mehring and Lensch. The latter at first promised to sign, but later withdrew his support. The manifesto could have been signed only by Luxemburg, Zetkin and Mehring, which was, of course, unthinkable and the plan had to be given up. A reader, not very well versed in German affairs, might ask: “And Liebknecht?” Unfortunately Liebknecht was still hesitating and only decided some months later to take up the fight against the war. This fight had to be carried on by conspiratorial methods, and only a few were ready for this. The group which did take up the fight consisted of comrades Luxemburg, Jogisches, Mehring, the two Dunckers, Ernst Meyer, Wilhelm Pieck, Eberlein, Lange and myself we were, I think, all.” (“Communist International,” No. 3, Markhlevsky: “Rosa Luxemburg and Jogisches.)
Without Liebknecht’s signature the manifesto could not be published. We had to wait. Rosa seized the first opportunity of raising the question of the International in our group, and of putting it before the German workers. The opportunity came at the calling of the first Zimmerwald Conference. Rosa Luxemburg, in prison, wrote, “The Crisis of Social-Democracy,” with an appendix containing “Directions for the tasks of international. Social-democracy.” Known as the Junius pamphlet, these theses were for the enlightenment of the Spartakus group, and were also intended to differentiate them from the centrists Haase, Ledebour, etc. The demand for the foundation of a new, Third International formed the main point of the theses. The decisive paragraphs run as follows:
“11. The Second International has been blown up by the war. The inadequacy of its organisation has been demonstrated by its incapacity to carry on an effective moral struggle against national hostilities in the war, and to maintain the united action of the workers in all countries.
"12. In face of the treachery of the official representatives of the socialist parties in the principal countries to the aims and interests of the working class, in face of their flight from the proletarian international to bourgeois imperialist policy, it is a vital question for socialism that a new international be founded which must take over the leadership and struggle against imperialism. organisation of the revolutionary class struggle against imperialism.
“It should be constructed on the following principles:
"(3) The weight of the workers’ class organisation is in the International. The International decides the tactics of the national sections in time of war, to questions of militarism, colonial policy, trade, labour celebrations and the whole tactic to be employed in the war.
"(4) Obedience to the decisions of the International overrides all other obligations. National sections who oppose the International’s decisions in war, thereby place themselves outside the international proletariat and release their members from all obligations to them.”
It is not the place here to enter into all the weaknesses of her pamphlet. Lenin’s criticism has become common knowledge in the International. But these quotations show clearly how Rosa Luxemburg had revised her attitude towards the questions of international organisation, and of the role of the Party, in a Leninist way.[1]
Of course, these theses have their weaknesses, due to Luxemburg’s ideas on imperialism. The causes given of the breakdown of the Second International are, from the Marxist standpoint, far behind those in the “Manifesto of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party on the Imperialist War,” which appeared in September, 1914.
But if those extracts dealing with the organisational structure of the new International are compared with section 13 of the Organisation question and the name of the Party,” in the Introduction to the first congress of the Communist International, the rapid revolutionary development of the Spartakusbund at the beginning of the war can be fairly well measured. The section runs. as follows:
“13. The basis of the Third International is assured by the fact that there already exist. in Europe groups and organisations of comrades holding the same principles and employing, on the whole, the same tactical methods. Such are particularly the Spartakists in Germany and the Communist Parties in many other countries.
"14. The Congress must set up a common fighting organ for the purpose of establising permanent contact and for planned leadership, that is, a centre of the Communist International must be set up, for the interests of the movement in every country are subordinate to the common interests of the revolution internationally.”
The history of this suggestion is told by Ernst Meyer:
“The proposal, as comparison with the final text shows, suffered but slight alteration.But as against the final text it had the merit of speaking of the “foundation” and not the creation" of the new International. This alteration was not accidental, but was suggested by Liebknecht to whom Rosa Luxemburg sent her theses from prison.Karl Liebknecht was also against the foundation of a new International. He only wanted directions for the “in spite of everything, one and indivisible International.”
"Unfortunately we have not Rosa Luxemburg’s answer to this letter; but from the final form of the theses it appears that Rosa did not consider Liebknecht’s criticism to be valid; in particular, the section on international discipline was kept.
"In the first national Conference of the international group, which took place in Karl Liebknecht’s office on New Year’s Day, 1916, the theses were put before the delegates and accepted in principle.The formal agreement to the final text occurred at the March Conference of the Spartakusbund.”
(“Under the Banner of Marxism,” vol. II., E. Mayer: “The Origin of the Junius pamphlet.”)
The Junius theses determined the attitude taken up by the Spartakus delegates, Ernst Meyer and Bertha Thalheimer, at Zimmerwald. This led to a sharp break between the Ledebour crowd and the Spartakists. On most questions the Spartakus delegates supported the left under Lenin’s leadership; but not on one important question, that of an immediate split and the foundation of the Third International, on which account they did not entirely support Lenin’s platform. It was mainly due to the effect of the Junius theses that at Kienthal the differences with the left had grown weaker. On the question of the Centralism of the International, the break with the Ledebour opposition was most marked, a sign of the revolutionary progress that Spartakus had made towards Lenin in the first years of the war. (vide E. Meyer: Introduction to the Spartakus letters, 1.)
But we believe that the irresolution of the Spartakists at Zimmerwald and Kienthal had nothing to do with Rosa Luxemburg’s attitude to the foundation of the Third International, and that her position early in 1919 was caused by other motives than those which affected her at Zimmerwald and Kienthal.
While in 1915 Rosa still envisaged the possibility of winning the majority of social-democratic organisations for the new International during the war, and, therefore, rejected the immediate foundation of the Third International (which is apparent in the apparent in the Junius theses), at the beginning of 1919 its foundation was an obvious necessity.
From all this it can be seen that the attitude of the Spartakusbund and Rosa Luxemburg to the International must not be identified with that of the left radicals–incorrect in principle–before the war to the question of an organisational break with reformism, of splitting the party. This is further proved by Rosa Luxemburg’s attitude to the political platform of the inaugural congress of the Communist Party of Poland, which took place on 16th December, 1918, that is, two weeks before that of the C.P.G. Dealing with the International, the programme declared:
“It is only in a few countries that the majority of the Party are definitely and uncompromisingly hostile to the war ideology; in other countries groups are gradually being formed to fight the social patriotic majority. The Zimmerwald and Kienthal Conferences were the first attempts to organise this opposition. But while the opposition of most did not start from the struggle for peace within capitalist society, among the revolutionary elements the consciousness began to grow., etc. In this way there arises the Communist International, already active in every country, the International of the social revolution.”
"In their pamphlet “Communism in Poland," comrades Brand and Valetsky write: “The proposed political programme of the Party which was to be founded, was sent to comrades Rosa Luxemburg and Leo Jogisches before the inaugural congress met in Warsaw, and met with their unreserved approval."
The criticism of Zimmerwald, which was for Rosa self-criticism, proves that the revolutionary leader of the German proletariat was at the end of the war completely in agreement with the Bolsheviks on the principles of the International.
Thus the differences of opinion between the Spartakusbund and Rosa Luxemburg, and the Bolsheviks at the foundation congress of the Comintern were not concerned with principles. Not only the course and results of the world war, but the ten years development of the Communist World Party have shown that, in everything which separated Rosa from Bolshevism, Bolshevism was right. Nevertheless “Luxemburgism,” the ideas of the Spartakists are indissolubly connected with the origin and development of the International.
By “Luxemburgism” we understand, not only its differences from Leninism, but also its determined and irreconcilable struggle against reformism. When over-zealous critics make short work of make short work of “Luxemburgism” by calling it “left Menshevism,” it indicates an attitude to the Party’s part which is suited to anything else rather than to making the development of the Comintern clear to party members, and to explaining, with Leninist criticism, the revolutionary tradition of the C.P.G.
What was Lenin’s method? During the war he sharply criticised the Junius theses, and demanded the greatest exertion of efforts towards Marxist development of the young C.P.G., but he thought it quite unnecessary to make a mechanical comparison of the development of the party in Russia and Germany, for experience.” the simple reason that it would have helped the young party neither to examine its past critically, nor to take that path which was necessary to transplant Leninism into the life of the revolutionary fight in Germany. The fact that Leninism has the uncontested and incontestable leadership in the revolutionary world movement is due not only to the triumph of Bolshevik principles in the Russian revolution, but also to the special conditions under which Bolshevik ideology and organisation grew up in Russia.
“On the other hand, having come into existence on this granite theoretical foundation, Bolshevism went through fifteen years (1903-1917) of practical history which, in fertility of experience, had no equal anywhere else in the world. In no other country during those fifteen years was there anything approximating to such wide revolutionary experience, such a variety and rapidity of shifting forms in the movement–legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, open and under- ground, embracing small circles and large masses, parliamentary and terrorist. In no other country, during so short a period of time, has there been concentrated such a multiplicity of forms, shades and methods of struggle, embracing all classes of modern society. To this it must be added that the struggle, maturing with particular rapidity because of the backwardness of the country and the heavy yoke of Tsarism, assimilated eagerly and successfully the latest developments of American and European political experience." (“Left Wing Communism,” p. 12.)
Between 1903 and 1917 Bolshevism developed that all-embracing theory, strategy and tactics of the seizure of power as we understand it to-day. And that it had to become the international ideology of the revolutionary proletariat is due to those same causes adduced by Lenin why the Russian workers were the first to seize power. Just as that was no "accident,” but a necessary result of diverse and unequal capitalist development, so too, it was no accident that the formation in Germany of a revolutionary Party, in Lenin’s sense, took longer than in Russia, and had to tread, and is still treading, a more painful and laborious road.
So, when reviewing the ten years’ history of the Communist World Party, one must understand and consider it in its totality. There are defeats as well as victories in the history of the Comintern. In the critical, and often agonising process of the birth and development of the Comintern, there is reflected the transformation of the oppressed and enslaved proletariat into the ruling class of modern history. Every stage in that history is dear to us, and must be studied carefully by us and particularly by our younger Party comrades, so that, in the next stage, we shall know how to carry out a correct revolutionary policy. At the foundation of the Comintern Bolshevism, Lenin, formed the General Staff of the new army of the proletariat, determined on victory–Spartakus, Rosa Luxemburg, the first revolutionary battalion of Western Europe.
1. There is an inconsistency in Rosa’s attitude to the organisation of the International and to the split in the S.D.P. Lenin points this out in his criticism of the pamphlet, which reproaches the author with not having stated the inevitability of the split and the connection between opportunism and socialist-jingoism. He writes: “It is an astonishing inconsistency, for in the 12 Thesis of the ‘International’ mention is directly made of the necessity for ‘new International…” (“Against the Stream,” p. 417.)