Rosmer

Speech to Session of Enlarged
Executive of C.I.

(22 June 1923)


From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 45, 22 June 1923, pp. 443–444.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2018). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.


On the question of centralism and the relations between the Communist International, and the R.I.L.U. the French delegations could cite some useful experiences. Hoeglund is of the opinion that the Executive is ill-informed and therefore is committing errors with regard to the Norwegian party. The opponents of the Communist International for a long time said the same thing with regard to the French question. In an article by Tranmael we find another argument which is also familiar to us, namely, that the International wishes to impose a passive obedience. Tranmael takes up a double position: at one moment he is against excessive centralism, at another he is playing the part of a left communist. The men who used to use such language in France are now outside the International and are making their way towards the Second International.

Falk has attempted to lay down the limits between the Communist International and its sections. It is difficult. But we invite the Scandinavian comrades to state their opinion of the attitude of the Executive in the French question. Has experience proved that the Executive was mistaken? What Negri said this morning proved that the Scandinavians had made a mistake when they quoted the opinion of the Italians. He said the were believers in centralism in the Communist International and find that there is still not enough of it.

The speaker referred to an alarming declaration of Tranmael: either a break with our revolutionary tradition or a break with the Communist International. Such phrases should nut be tolerated. They remind us of Frossard, who also placed himself between the French tradition and the Communist International The first condition for the solution of this conflict is not to represent it in this manner.

The speech of Duret surprised the delegates from France. Duret has been in Moscow six months, he has neglected the French party, he has not furnished it with information, nor has he formulated any criticism of it. But he criticized it severely from this platform, tie would not have done so if he had the slightest connection with the party. Treint is in agreement with us at bottom, but he was alone in the defense of his unfortunate term, “labor imperialism”. His article was published with reservations. One cannot prevent a militant from occasionally writing stupidities. Duret knows that better than anybody. As to Treint’s replies to the dissidents, we did not wait for the criticism of Duret before bringing them forward. We have had considerable success in the application of the tactic of the united front, as the discomfiture of the leaders of the reformist C.G.T. proves. We should have been far more advanced if Duret had not caused us to lose a year in sterile discussion of that tactic.

As to Hamburg, Höglund said that there was a danger in underestimating the fusion of the two internationals. If it is true that it clarifies the situation for us Communists, it is also true that it may give rise to delusions. Therefore we must unmask the action of the Social-Democrats at Hamburg. But the best way of fighting the new Social-Democratic International is to oppose it by another, to resemble it in no respect and not to barter, as the Scandinavians have done, for our attachment and aid of the Communist International.


Last updated on 16 October 2021