This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized

by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the

information in books and make it universally accessible.

https://books.google.com
5
89
Universityof
Michigan
Libraries
1817

ARTES'SCIENTIA VERITAS
 THE

COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

M. N. ROY

RADICAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY

PRICE: ONE RUPEE

-

1
1
THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

a
dr
en
ab
an

BY

M. NOROY
‫ة‬

:
RADICAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY PUBLICATION
1943
 Publisher :
V. B. Karnik
Gen. Secretary, A. I. R. D. P.
Bombay 4.

HX
11
15
.
R89

RIGHTS RESERVED

Printer : a

G. G. Pathare,
The Popular Printing Press
Bombay 7.
 Stacks
Gefo
Wo
To th memory of
M. Nikoy
Richard Le Park
8-23-60
PREFACE

In contemporary history, which has been crowded

with a rapid succession of startling developments, no
event is perhaps of deeper and more far-reaching sig-
nificance than the dissolution of the Communist Inter- '
national. In the following pages the distinguished
writer of this book, who was one of those revolutionary
pioneers that founded the International, has analysed
the causes which led to its dissolution and has presented
a new perspective for the future development of the
forces of world revolution.
As was to be expected, the dissolution of the Com-
munist International has been interpreted by various
persons according to their predilections and predis-
positions. The sentimental nationalists have regarded
it as a triumph of their cause and a resounding defeat
of internationalism in the very home of its inspiration.
On the other hand, sentimental communists-unfortu-
nately, a large number of romantic revolutionaries must
be included in this curious category-are inclined to
regard the dissolution of the International as a purely
opportunist step, dictated by the diplomatic convenience
of the Soviet Union and bound to be retraced in more
favourable circumstances. Both these interpretations
thus agree in regarding this step as a setback, whether
permanent or temporary, to the ideal of communism
and to international co-operation for achieving that
ideal.

3
 In this book, M. N. Roy has presented a very dif-
ferent and characteristically original analysis, based
upon his appreciation of the fact that communism has
become easier of attainment as a result of this anti-
fascist war, the revolutionary implications of which he
was the first to recognise. The ideal of communism,
so far from receding into the background, has actually
come to the forefront, but the ways of achieving it have
changed and the human forces which will participate
in its accomplishment have greatly increased. The
anti- fascist forces in the world, which comprise a larger
section of the people than the working classes, are the
objectively revolutionary forces of today. The Com-
munist International, confined to the working classes
alone and committed to the outworn dogma of " the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat," had become obsolete in
both its scope and its technique. It has disappeared
to facilitate international co-operation on a wider basis
and with a more appropriate technique.
In recent years, all thoughtful revolutionaries
have been faced with an almost insoluble dilemma.
The working classes were divided into two sections.
The reformist school proved its bankruptcy by its in
ability to introduce socialism by gradual and constitu
tional means even when placed in power. The revo
lutionary section of the workers, on the other hand
repeatedly failed to bring about a successful revolution
in the face of the greatly enhanced military power of a

a modern State and the more effective co-operation oft

such powerful capitalist States in crushing the revolu a
tionary upheaval in any single country. Both reformis p
as well as revolutionary methods having proved ineffec
tive, there appeared to be no way to bring about those ri
 fundamental changes which nevertheless remained
necessary for the further progress of society as a whole.
History, however, could not be so easily checkmated.
When the working class could not bring about the neces-
sary social transformation by its own unaided efforts,
the contradictions of capitalism assumed such ugly
forms as to force a large section of the other classes
of society into an alliance with the working class. The
anti-fascist front, which has developed during the course
of this war, represents this new alignment of forces.
New ways of revolution have consequently opened up,
and these have been indicated in the following pages .
When the contents of this book first appeared in
the form of a series of articles in" Independent India,"
a question was sometimes raised as to why the explana-
tion given by Stalin about the dissolution of the Inter-
national is so very different from that of M. N. Roy.
The two, however, are not contradictory. Stalin ex-
plained how the step was calculated to improve the dip-
lomatic relations of the Soviet Union with other coun-
tries and to remove the basis of the interested
propaganda that communists wanted to impose their
system on unwilling peoples by outside intervention.
These advantages of the dissolution of the Communist
International can however become pertinent only after
Dit is realised that the International had already become
incapable of fulfilling its original object of bringing
about a world revolution. Roy seeks to explain why
the International failed to achieve its object and became
a hindrance to further progress. The tree which was
planted more than twenty years ago with such fond
hopes had dried up and become sterile. It would be
right to say that it was cut down for the supply of fuel ;
5
but one wants to know why the tree should become dead
and sterile, so that to cut it down should appear more
advantageous than to let it stand. This more funda-
mental question has been answered in this book.
A ruthless realist, free from attachment to any
dogma and always responsive to changes in the world
situation, M. N. Roy has been for many years a pioneer
in revolutionary philosophy. None in India has better
authority to write on the Communist International or to
analyse the causes that led to its dissolution. In this
book he has shown how the traditional ideas of revolu-
tion, which have dominated political controversy for
nearly a hundred years, have become obsolete, and how
new ways of revolution have opened up. As such, this
book is bound to be of historical importance. Political
workers devoted to the cause of freedom and progress
will find it not only thought-provoking but a valuable
guide to action.
V. M. TARKUNDE

Ratilal Mansion,
Parekh Street,
Bombay 4.

6
 THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

HE news of the dissolution of the Communist

THEInternational must have caused surprise through-
out the world. It has come unexpectedly, yet not quite
as a bolt from the blue. It has been neither an arbi-
trary act on the part of the Russians, nor an opportun-
ist move of Soviet diplomacy, though one of its by-
products may, indeed, be a better diplomatic relation
between the Soviet Government and its allies in this
war.

The Communist International had been a night-

mare for the ruling classes of the world ever since its
foundation twenty-five years ago . Even today, the
United Nations are not quite free from the influence
of die-hard reactionaries and stupid conservatives. For
the sake of its immense military advantage, they put
up with an alliance with the Soviet Union. But they
do not want it to be anything more than a temporary
make-shift, and would utilise the relation between the
Soviet Government and the Communist International
as the excuse for breaking up the alliance as soon as the
exigencies of this war were over. As a matter of fact,
of late they have been complimenting the Russians for
abandoning the cause of world revolution and recover-
ing their traditional patriotic spirit. The dissolution
of the Communist International will be welcomed by

7
them as the conclusive evidence for the triumph of re-
action in the Soviet Union, qualifying it for respectable
company. Indeed, it is reported that some American
public men have congratulated the Soviet Government
for " the step in the right direction ". It is certainly
a step in the right direction . But the standards of right
and wrong are still different.

It would be a matter of satisfaction if the dissolu-

tion of the Communist International incidentally con-
tributed to an improvement of diplomatic relations
inside the camp of the United Nations. But the Rus-
sians have taken this step without any opportunist
motive. That is clear from the resolution to dissolve
the organization. The full text is not yet available.
But sufficient indication of the object is to be found in
the following passage included in the cabled report :
" The proposal to disband is based on the fact that
world conditions have greatly altered since the Comin-
tern was founded, and that this form of international
working class organisation no longer corresponds to
world conditions, specially in view of the state of affairs
""
created by the present war." The resolution contains
a strong appeal to all the Communist Parties in other
countries " to concentrate all their forces for the fullest
support of, and active participation in, the war of free-
dom of the peoples and States of the anti- Hitlerite
coalition in order to smash as quickly as possible the
deadly enemy of workers- German Fascism and its
allies and vassals. "

The words italicized (by me ) in the above

quotation indicate the change in world conditions, in
consequence of which the old form of international-

8
working class organization has become out of place.
It is a regrettable fact that since this war started, and
even for a time previous to it, the Communist Parties
in other countries than the Soviet Union, obsessed with
their mechanical ideas about past, present and future,
failed to realise that freedom of the peoples and States
of the anti-Hitlerite coalition was the condition for the
attainment of the greater freedom visualised in the pro-
gramme of the Communist International. They failed
to see that the freedom of the peoples and the States
of the anti-Hitlerite coalition would smash the deadly
enemy of the workers and thus pave the way for the
freedom of the working class. They forgot one of the
lessons of history taught by Karl Marx, namely, that
a class frees itself by freeing the entire society of the
time.

The change in the world conditions which war-

ranted the dissolution of the Communist International
was brought about by the establishment of the Nazi
regime in Germany. Fascism had appeared on the
scene as the avowed enemy, not only of the working
class, but of modern political institutions and cultural
values, more than a decade earlier. It had come to
power in Italy. But not until the Nazis captured power
in Germany did Fascism become an imminent menace
for the whole world. Until then, Fascism was regard-
ed, except by a few penetrating observers, as enemy
only of the working class, and therefore to be fought
only by the working class. A centralized world organi-
zation was to co-ordinate and guide the activities of
the working class in different countries, in pursuance
of that historic task. The Communist International
was that world organization.
9
 But before long, it became evident (it was evident
to the more discerning observers from the very philo-
sophy of Fascism) that Fascism proposed to subvert
the whole structure of modern civilised society which
enabled the more advanced sections of humanity to
strive successfully for greater human freedom. There
was a new polarisation of world forces. The working
class was no longer alone in the fight which it had
undertaken more than a century ago. It should be
emphasised that historically the object of the fight was
not to liberate the working class alone, but to liberate
the entire society from bondages which prevented its
further progress. This historical object of the work-
ing class movement may not have been clear in the
mind of the great bulk of its members. But it was
there, serving as its motive force.
Triumphant Fascism forced a new alignment of
forces, an, alliance of all desirous of defending
modern civilization. The working class belonged
to that alliance. But it could not immediately
take up its position in the new constellation of
forces fighting for freedom, because the new
alliance embraced many social elements and political
organizations which had previously been regarded as
antagonistic to the liberation of the working class.
Therefore, even after the world conditions had under.
gone a far-reaching change, the Communist Interna
tional continued in existence.
But the Soviet Government promptly appreciated
the new world situation, characterised by a new polar
isation of forces, and adapted itself to it. The first
step in that direction was to join the League of Nations,
which had previously been condemned as an alliance
10
of imperialist powers for the destruction of the Soviet
Union and for world domination. The next step was
the persistent effort of the Soviet Government for non-
aggression pacts which were to lay the foundation for
an anti-Fascist alliance. The newly orientated Soviet
foreign policy eventually resulted in the formation of
the Franco-Soviet alliance which, linked up with the
alliances of both these Powers with Czechoslovakia, re-
presented a long advance towards the formation of an
anti-fascist bloc. The appeasement policy of the Bri-
tish Government under Chamberlain delayed the con-
summation of that object. Nevertheless, the Soviet
Government was undaunted in its efforts, and had not
the Moscow negotiations in 1939 failed, it would have
entered into an alliance even with the Chamberlain
Government.

The People's Front movement, inaugurated by the

Communist Parties in 1934, at the instance of the
Russians, was in accord with the new orientation of
Soviet foreign policy. Fundamentally, that was a
deviation from the original position of the Communist
International ; therefore, if the new movement deve-
loped as it promised to, it could not be accommodated
within the organizational structure of the Communist
International. By sponsoring the new movement, the
Communist International substituted dictatorship of
the proletariat by a democratic alliance as the means
to the attainment of its ultimate goal. Of course, this
fundamental shifting of position was not noticed by
the Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union. It
is immaterial whether all the Russian leaders them-
selves realised the implication of the movement they
encouraged. However, the People's Front movement
11
was a definite step towards the eventual dissolution of
the Communist International-not only its organiza-
tional disabandment, but a revision of its political pro-
gramme and theoretical presuppositions.
But history refuses to be fitted into any
scheme devised even by the cleverest of the leaders
of men. The Spanish episode proved to be
a
serious snag, and upset all the calculations
of the Russians regarding the possibilities of the
People's Front movement. Had the movement succeed-
ed in France, as it had a very good chance to do, the
whole history of Europe might have changed. But to
prevent a break in their sustained effort for bringing
about an anti-fascist alliance, the Soviet Government,
while fully supporting the People's Front Republican
Government of Spain, could not successfully oppose
the non-intervention policy of the British Government,
which succeeded in compelling the People's Front Gov-
ernment in France to fall in line. The result was the
People's Front movement ending in a debacle. But
seen from a historical perspective, it was only a tem-
porary break in the process of realignment of forces
in accord with changed world conditions.
That was a process which ultimately was bound
to dissolve the Communist International formally. As
a matter of fact, the spiritual dissolution of the organ-
ization coincided with that process, when Stalin de-
clared that Communism was not a commodity for export.
That historic declaration was evidently not a repudia- d
tion of Communism. It meant that the Soviet Govern.
ment did not propose to introduce Communism in other
countries. Those who entertained the ideal of Com-
munism as a historical necessity need not have the
12
ambition of imposing it on other countries. If Com-
munism is a necessary stage of social evolution, every
country will reach the stage in due course of time. The
progress towards that stage is bound to be uneven,
determined by the conditions of each country, the con-
ditions in any particular country being determined by
the world conditions.
But the continued existence of the Communist
International appeared to contradict the declaration of
Stalin, which could be made by any sensible Commun-
ist in any country. It appeared to contradict because
formally the Communist International was not a
part of the Soviet Government and much less identical
with it. But that was only the formal relation. In
reality, the Communist International was so very inti-
mately linked up with the Soviet Government that it
was very difficult to dissociate the latter from any act or
or idea of the former.

The Communist International proclaimed itself

to be the General Staff of the army of world revolution.
Nominally, the army was stationed throughout the
world, each of the sixty odd Communist Parties being
the commanding cadres of the respective local detach-
ments of the army of world revolution. But the fact
remained that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
was a member of the Communist International, and was
therefore committed by all its pronouncements and res-
ponsible for all its actions. Moreover, it occupied such
a dominating position in the International that with-
out its approval the latter could make no pronounce-
ment nor undertake any action. On the other hand,
the Soviet Government was controlled by the Commun-
ist Party of the Soviet Union. Its new foreign policy
13
was sanctioned by the Communist Party. Therefore,
for a time, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
was pursuing a course which could be characterised
as double-dealing.

That was a damaging result of the contradictions

of the existence of the Communist International even
after the change in world conditions had rendered it
superfluous. Indeed, the position was still worse.
According to its constitution, the activities of each
party affiliated to it are planned and guided collective- t
ly by the International as a whole. Formally, the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union could not claim t
exemption from the rule. Therefore, the entire Com- b
munist International was committed by the new orien-
tation of the Soviet foreign policy which, in its turn,
prepared the ground for the dissolution of the Com- re
munist International. Such a self-contradictory situa- re
tion could not continue indefinitely. But it is very pr
difficult to abolish an established institution.
to
It would have been easier if the Communist to
Parties in other parts of the world, at least in the lead- ba
ing countries, were as keenly alive to the changing con- to
ditions as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. th
But intellectual subservience was the curse of practi- to
cally all the Communist Parties outside the Soviet ot
Union. That misfortune again was to a large extent wi
historically determined. The Communist International Th
was a creation of the Russians. By virtue of the fact on
that it was the only Communist Party in power, the she
Communist Party of the Soviet Union was naturally
recognised as the leader of the International, and con-
sequently dominated it in every respect. All the other of
14
-parties accepted the authority of the Russians, to the
point of intellectual subservience. The Russians could
not be entirely absolved of all responsibility in this
connection. But they did not deliberately try to check
the intellectual growth of other parties. The spirit of
hero worship and the atmosphere of the Catholic
- Church, which came to prevail in the Communist Inter-
national, caused intellectual atrophy and political help-
lessness on the part of the Communist Parties outside the
- Soviet Union. Consequently, the Communist Interna-
tional dragged along its self-contradictory and super-
fluous existence under the momentum of its inability to
think for itself. Ultimately the Russians had to
bell the cat.

But even now, they have acted very correctly. The

resolution to dissolve the Communist International is
recommendatory. It has been submitted for the ap-
proval of all the affiliated parties. The latter have the
right to reject the proposal. But it would be too much
to expect of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
to abide by such a possible, though completely impro-
bable, decision. Even then, there will be nothing
to prevent other Communist Parties to maintain
their world organization. That is not at all likely
to happen. Already several Communist leaders in
other countries have rushed to endorse the resolution
without even waiting for reading the full text of it.
That shows to what a depth of moral degradation this
once proud organization has fallen, and that again
shows how very necessary was its dissolution.
One colourful chapter of the history of revolution
t
of our time is closed. How will the next chapter begin ?
15
 History is not divided into water-tight compart
ments. Its chapters overlap. We have been living
through such a period of transition, which can be re-
garded as having been closed by the Nazi attack on
the Soviet Union. The new chapter began with an
event which would have been entirely incredible even
a few days earlier. It was Churchill's speech on the
day after the Soviet Union was attacked . Even that
incredible event was not altogether unexepected. It
was determined by the fall of Chamberlain and the
subsequent development of British foreign policy.
Stalin's speech shortly afterwards clearly indicated
how the new chapter was going to be written. Finally
came the Anglo- Soviet alliance as the most outstand
ing landmark of contemporary history. The far-reach-
ing implication of the fact that the alliance was con-
cluded for 20 years was not appreciated by many. It
has not been fully appreciated as yet. Men at the helm
of affairs of leading countries do not commit their res
pective governments for such a long time in these event-
ful days, when something entirely unexpected may hap
pen tomorrow, unless they are working with a long
term plan. At least in the case of Stalin, that was so.
The dissolution of the Communist International proves
that.

16.
で
II

HE chapter of the contemporary history of revo-

THElution, closed with the dissolution of the Com-
munist International, did not begin with its foundation.
| Originally, the Communist International was called the
Third International. Two other Internationals had
- preceded it. The history of all the three Internationals
composes the history of revolution of our time. The
chapter just closed had opened with the formation
of the International Association of Workers by Karl | ?
Marx, Friedrich Engels and their associates in 1866.
The theoretical foundation of the new organization was
I laid down by the memorable Communist Manifesto
issued about fifteen years earlier.
The rise of National States had been the outstand-
ing feature of the history of Europe during the pre-
ceding century. The revolutionary struggle leading
up to the establishment of National States was led by
the rising capitalist class , called the bourgeoisie , be-
cause of their association with urban areas. It had the
support also of the urban workers as well as of the
peasantry. The revolution developed under the ban-
ner of democratic freedom. But the National States
established by it became instruments in the hands of
the capitalist middle class with or without the support
of the upper classes.
By a searching analysis of the mode of capitalist
production, Karl Marx showed that all new values were
created by labour ; that production of surplus value

17
2
was the basis of capitalist economy. Capitalist eco-
nomy, though developing within national boundaries
protected by respective National States, was however
a universal system. It was guided by laws which oper
ated everywhere. Consequently, industrial workers in
all the capitalist countries were subjected to an identi-
cal system of exploitation. Their ultimate liberation
was conditional upon the replacement of that system
by a system of social justice. But the system being
universal, the struggle against it must take place on an
international scale. Even the immediate demands of
the industrial workers as regards wages and conditions
of labour could not be enforced successfully in one
country. If wages remained low in one country and na
the workers there laboured under worse conditions, the
capitalists in another country would not redress the
grievances of their workers in that respect on the plea
that greater cost of production would make them unable
to compete in the world market. If the conditions of
workers were depressed in one country, workers of
all other countries would be adversely affected on the
b
same plea.
Having pointed out the identity of interest of the
working class throughout the world, Karl Marx gave
the famous slogan " Workers of the World-Unite ! " fre
which became the motto of the international labour
movement.
Wo
Patriotism was a product of the Great French an
Revolution. But after the establishment of National tha
States , the sentiment was exploited by vested interests tas
for entrenching themselves and aggrandising them- hi
selves at the cost of the toiling masses. The latter were mo
to sacrifice so that the nation might prosper and be
18
great. Patriotism lost its charm for the workers and,
indeed, became an instrument for their social slavery.
Karl Marx showed that capitalism expropriated the
producing masses . How could they be the owners of
their respective countries ? Therefore, Marx declared
that the working class had no country. Nationalism
would make the working class of one country fight the
working class of another, while the interests of the
working class, immediate as well as remote, required
united efforts against the universal system of exploita-
tion. That analysis of the situation, as it was in the
middle of the nineteenth century, led the pioneers of
the labour movement towards the ideal of inter-
nationalism. The International Association of Workers,
subsequently known as the First International, was
founded in consequence.
The Communist Manifesto not only laid down
the theoretical foundation of the International Associa-
tion of Workers, but also outlined its programme of
action. The immediate object of the International was
to secure progressive improvement of the conditions
of the working class through collective action. The
ultimate object was to replace capitalist society, based
on private ownership of the means of production, by a
freer social organization in which they would be col-
lectively owned. Even before the time of Karl Marx,
workers had been called to revolt against capitalism
and establish a communist society. Property had been
characterised by philosophers as theft, and capitalism
castigated as sinful. But the ideal of common owner-
ship and communist society remained a utopia-no
more within practical realisation than the Christian
Millennium.

19
 Karl Marx showed that Communism was not a
utopia ; that property was not theft, but a lever of
social progress in a certain stage of history ; and that
capitalism was a necessary stage of social evolution
From that analysis he concluded that, just as private
ownership had replaced tribal communism, and capi
talism had replaced earlier economic systems, just so
was it bound to be replaced eventually by a higher
form of social organization . He further showed that
the capitalist mode of production with the aid of modern
machine would gradually undermine private owner
ship, and, without any social necessity, the latter could
exist only as an obstacle to further economic develop
ment. Machine production socialises labour ; the
corollary to that should be common ownership of the
means of production-of the tools with which labour
is performed. Communism ceased to be a utopia. I
was conceived as a necessary stage of social evolution.

Although capitalism , being a stage of social evolu

tion, was bound to disappear in course of time, National
States controlled by the capitalist class could maintain
it almost indefinitely even after it had exhausted all
its progressive possibilities. The mode of production
is the lever of social evolution ; but political power
could promote or retard progress. Therefore, Kar
Marx came to the conclusion that the capture of poli
tical power by the working class was the condition for
the final disappearance of the decayed capitalist society
and the establishment of Communism. The State being
the instrument in the hands of the class controlling the
economic life of a nation, it must be overthrown before
the life could be reorganised. The State further is the
organ of power ; therefore it could not be overthrown

20
without violence. This analysis led to the conclusion
that sooner or later the working class, striving for a
better social order, must rise up in insurrection against
the established State, overthrow it and establish a dic-
tatorship of the proletariat to overwhelm all resistance,
and ultimately to establish the communist social order.
The International Association of Workers was to
inspire the working class of the world with those ideals
and lead them step by step through the outlined pro-
gram of action. Before long there was an insurrec-
tion, which established the Paris Commune of 1870.
The experience was very short. Its defeat was ex-
plained by the fact that the Commune was not a pro-
letarian dictatorship. The real reason of the failure
perhaps was that already then the relation of forces had
so changed as to make insurrection not a very practi-
cal proposition. Less than a hundred years ago, the
Parisian people, armed with picks and shovels, could
overwhelm and overthrow the corrupt and decayed
monarchy. But in 1870, the insurgents had to face
the formidable Prussian Army, which was very much
different from the armed forces of the effete Bourbons .
:

Insurrection as well as dictatorship were traditions

of the French Revolution, and of other revolutions of
still earlier periods. The revolution which broke out
towards the end of the eighteenth century continued
throughout the earlier half of the nineteenth century.
Therefore, the tradition was very much alive. The
Communist Manifesto was composed in the midst of
an insurrectionary atmosphere, when in 1848 several
European capitals were scenes of insurrection. They
all failed. But it was too early to draw the lesson of
21
 the failure. It was ascribed to weakness and treachery.
But in 1870, there was neither weakness nor treachery
among the Communards of Paris. Still the insurrec
tion did not succeed, and the Commune was drowned
in a sea of blood. The relation of forces had changed,
at least it was changing. Nevertheless, it was too early
to detect the process. Therefore, revolutionaries stood
by the traditions of the Great French Revolution and
inscribed insurrection and dictatorship on their banner.
1

The very achievement of the French Revolution,

however, rendered action according to its tradition very
difficult, if not impossible. The newly arisen National
States were economically much more stable, politically
much better organized and militarily immensely
stronger than the decayed feudal order and mediaeval
monarchy which they had replaced. They could
not be easily overthrown by popular upheavals. That
was proved by the experience of revolutionary move.
ments during the period between the Great French d
Revolution and the Paris Commune.
The First International was disrupted by the con
sequences of the fall of the Paris Commune. The bitter
experience of a whole century of defeats sobered down Π
the spirit of the working class. There was yet another 0
cause for the tendency which since then gained ascen
dancy in the labour movement. Partial political free
dom and civic rights, established in a number of modern
European States during the very period when the revo
✓ lutionary movement experienced a series of defeats,
afforded the working class the opportunity to defend
and promote their immediate interests with less spec
tacular methods. During the last decades of the nine w
teenth century there was a steady improvement in the pe
22
conditions of the working class, particularly in Great
Britain. Consequently, the ideas with which the Inter-
national Association of Workers had been established
began to lose their appeal to the bulk of workers and
the Second International was born in that atmosphere
of optimism.
Dictatorship was indeed an ill-conceived idea. It
is particularly out of place in the Marxian scheme of
historical development. With the development of capi-
talism, the majority of a nation becomes proletarianis-
ed. The object of revolution is to restore the dispos-
sessed to their own. Political power has indeed been
given the decisive importance. But when political power
is captured by the proletariat, it comes in the possession
of the majority and consequently the ideal of demo-
cracy is realised. Assuming that capture of power was
still to be an act of violence-overthrow of the estab-
lished State by an insurrection-its result would be not
dictatorship, but establishment of democracy. For these
reasons, it was inadvisable to have been carried away
by the idea of dictatorship. As a matter of fact, ori-
ginally, Marx and his associates did not do so. The
necessity of dictatorship was pressed subsequently in
order to combat the simplification of the problem of
the transformation of the State from an instrument in
the hands of the possessing classes into a bulwark of
freedom for the people as a whole.
But the faith in parliamentary democracy, which
characterised the Second International, was equally
misplaced. That was proved by subsequent history,
when working class parties commanding majorities in
parliaments, or at least constituting sufficiently large
23
minorities, failed to influence fundamentally the policy
of the State. A middle course had to be found. But
it was as yet too early. It could be opened later on
only by radical changes in the relation of forces, changes
which have now warranted the dissolution of the Com-
munist International.

Revolution remained a necessity. Class relations

must change. Ultimately, society should cease to be
divided into exploiting and exploited classes. A radi-
cal change in the political organization of society, that
is the State, was a condition for the fulfilment of all
those necessities. If the State could not be overthrown,
what was the other alternative ? The opponents of the
idea of dictatorship failed to realise the decisive impor-
tance of the State. They could not distinguish between
the State and the Government. As it was theoretically
possible for the working class, wherever and whenever
it constituted the majority of the population, to form
the Government under the parliamentary system, it was
maintained that power was within the reach of the
working class. There was nothing more to do than to
take it. The fallacy of this view was exposed by
experience and later on by the forcible abolition of
parliamentary democracy on the advent of Fascism.
That experience revived the idea of dictatorship, and
the Communist International was established after the
last world war with the original programme of the
International Association of Workers. The Second
International with its faith in parliamentary democracy
had come to grief on the outbreak of the last war. But
the history of the intervening quarter of a century could
not simply be effaced. It was bound to influence sub-
sequent developments.

24
 The failure of parliamentary democracy to
develop gradually into Socialism, and its eventual sup-
pression in a number of European countries by Fascism,
naturally placed the ideas of violent overthrow of the
capitalist State and dictatorship of the proletariat again
on the order of the day. But at the same time, the rise
of Fascism revealed the inadequacies of parliamentary
democracy and forced a realignment of forces on the
international scale, which created conditions for a pos-
sible transformation of the State peacefully.
The last great war broke up the Second Interna-
tional and dispelled its parliamentary illusions. It
also created conditions for the success of the revolu-
tion in Russia. The Communist International, origi-
nally called the Third International, was one of the
immediate outcomes of the Russian Revolution. Imme-
diately preceding events determined the outlook of the
Communist International, which appeared as the un-
compromising standard-bearer of the tradition of the
First International. The latter was inspired by the
traditions of the Great French Revolution. The Third
International proposed to carry the banner of the revo-
lution, successful in Russia, to the rest of the world.
Naturally it believed that revolution must travel the
same way everywhere, that the scenes of Leningrad
and Moscow in 1917 should be reenacted to the minutest
detail, including the very stage-setting, in Berlin, Paris
and London.

When the parties of the Second International called

upon the workers in their respective countries to parti-
cipate in the last war, as a war of national defence,
Lenin denounced the war as an imperialist war and
25
gave the slogan that it should be transformed into a
civil war. The Russian Revolution triumphed with
that slogan. The Communist International inherited
that tradition. Ultimately, it approached the situation
created by the present anti-Fascist war with the old
slogan of Lenin. It failed to see how the slogan was
entirely inapplicable to this war. Between the two
wars, two new factors had appeared on the scene,
namely, a Socialist State embracing one sixth of the
globe, and Fascism which had subjugated the whole
of Europe. Consequently, this war broke out on the
background of an entirely different relation of forces.
The old slogan of Lenin was not applicable to it simply
because this war is a civil war. There is nothing to
be transformed. And the revolutionary character of
this war was determined by events which had taken
place during the period between the two wars. Since
the world is involved in a civil war which, if waged
resolutely, will bring about the necessary transforma-
tion of the State, the programme of the Communist
International had become unsuitable to the situation.
Therefore, its dissolution was a necessity.

26
 III

DIDprove
not the experience of the Russian Revolution
that insurrection and dictatorship of the
proletariat are indispensable conditions for the attain-
ment of the goal of Communism ? That goal still re-
mains to be attained in other parts of the world. Did
not, then, the Communist International still have a his-
torical role to play ?
The Russian Revolution is a fluke of history. It
does not fit into the Marxist scheme of revolution.
According to that scheme, a revolution in our time
becomes necessary when capitalism undermines the
institution of private property by socialising produc-
tion, and thus lays down the foundation for the social
ist society. Those conditions for a necessary social
transformation mature only in the most advanced capi-
talist countries. Before the revolution they were prac-
tically absent in Russia. The revolution there succeed-
ed thanks to a fortuitous combination of circumstances.
Nevertheless, once it did succeed, it became the most
decisive event of our time. Only it did not set the pat-
tern of subsequent events. It influenced the course of
history indirectly.
That is the case with all great revolutions. None
of them is ever repeated after the original model. That
was so after the French Revolution. It opened up a
whole period of revolutions lasting for nearly a century.
But the Parisian scene of the last decade of the
eighteenth century was never enacted anywhere. The
27
.
Communist International disregarded this lesson of
history. It proposed to organize revolutions in all the
other countries of the world after the model of the
Russian Revolution. The impracticability of that plan
became evident very soon. Yet, it was many years
before the plan was abandoned before the actual dis-
solution of the Communist International. In so far as
the Russians were concerned, the plan was practically
abandoned as far back as 1926. Already then, Stalin
at least had come to the conclusion that revolution on
the Russian model was not possible in the countries of
Western Europe. That was not a theoretical conclu-
sion but wisdom gained from experience. The Com-
munist International should have been disbanded
already at that time.
No great revolution sets the pattern of subsequent
events. But in each case, the respective ideals are at-
tained gradually over a whole period, even in countries
not experiencing any revolutionary upheaval. The
French Revolution was opposed by all the Powers of
Europe. Prussia led the opposition militarily. But
the greatest opposition to the ideals of the French Revo-
lution came from Britain, although the ideals had pre-
viously been conceived in that country. Later on, the
ideals of the French Revolution triumphed more nearly
in Britain than in any other European country. Simi-
larly, in the case of the Russian Revolution, its oppo-
nents have at last become allies and admirers of the
Soviet Union. That does not mean that they are going to
imitate the Russians. They still remain opposed to the
idea of Communism. But what is there in a name ?
When the achievements of the Soviet Union win the
admiration of the world, they are bound to influence
28
the course of coming history. Britain's relation to the
Russian Revolution may be a repetition of her relation
with the French Revolution.

The Russian Revolution could take place on the

model of the Great French Revolution even after nearly
hundred and fifty years because of the peculiarities of
the situation in which it took place. For one thing,
Russia had not experienced the process of moderniza-
tion which had taken place in other European countries
since the French Revolution. The economic organiza-
tion of the country remained very backward and un-
stable. The State was corrupt and inefficient. There was
indeed a large army equipped with modern weapons. But
it was not free from the corruption and inefficiency of
the State, being itself a part of the State. Secondly,
during the war the economic life of the country was
further disorganized. Then, defeat . completely dis-
organized the army and demoralized the State. On
the whole, the conditions thus were very much analog-
ous to those at the time of the Great French Revolution
when an armed insurrection could succeed.
But even then no success would be guaranteed to
the Russian Revolution if the factor which operated
against subsequent revolutionary upheavals in other
countries could be in operation against it also. That
factor was the armed forces of the victorious Powers.
When the Russian State collapsed and the revolution-
aries seized power, external opponents of the revolu-
tion were busy elsewhere. They could not intervene
promptly as they did in the case of subsequent revolu-
tionary outbreaks in other countries. The only threat
came from the German Eastern armies, and they were
29
almost on the point of overwhelming the revolution and
overrunning the whole of European Russia . But that
danger to the Russian Revolution was headed off by
the defeat of the Germans on the Western front. Be-
cause the capitalist Powers were engaged in a war
against each other, the grand alliance against the
Russian Revolution could not be formed as promptly
as in the case of the French Revolution. That gave the re-
volution some time to consolidate itself-politically, if
not militarily and economically. Even when the grand
alliance was eventually formed, it was not very solid,
being rent with mutual suspicion and rivalry among
its members. Therefore the war of intervention was
waged indirectly. In short, insurrection succeeded in
Russia because it did not have to contend with an
organised modern army. That was an accident. Revo-
lutionary outbreaks in other countries, inspired by the
Russian experience, did not have the advantage, and
all failed .

A theory was constructed out of the Russian ex-

perience : Collapse of the established State in conse-
quence of a military defeat is the condition for a suc-
cessful revolution ; therefore, in the case of a war,
revolutionaries should try to bring about the military
defeat of their countries. The theory came to be known
as revolutionary defeatism. As a matter of fact, Lenin
had developed that theory even before the Russian Re-
volution. The revolution was believed to have corrobo-
rated the theory. Apparently that was the case. But
the success of the revolution was due to many other con-
tributory causes, which were not properly appreciated.
Consequently, the theory became rather a dogma than
a lesson learned from experience. The Communist
30
International tried to act according to the dogmatic
theory of revolutionary defeatism when this war broke
out. That was the greatest blunder it ever committed.
The blunder landed it almost in the camp of its avowed
enemy. It became more evident than ever how danger-
ous it was to maintain an organization, committed to
antiquated ideals and an impracticable program, even
after its existence had become superfluous.
A year after the Russian Revolution, it became
clear that the collapse of a State upon military defeat
did not guarantee the success of revolution. In
autumn 1918, the German army suffered defeat, and
the monarchist State collapsed. There was a revolu-
tionary outbreak throughout the country. Even soldiers
and sailors joined the revolution, here and there. But
the insurrection did not succeed. The Communists
ascribed the failure to the treachery of the Social Demo-
cratic Party. It is true that the latter, as a party, did
not join the insurrection. But it would have failed
even if they had joined. Because defeat on the front
had not completely disintegrated the German army
which, on the whole, remained loyal to the ruling class.
The latter, in its turn, was not corrupt and inefficient like
the Russian ruling class. Then, had the revolution in
Germany developed and come nearer to success, it would
certainly have had to contend with the victorious Allied
armies standing guard on the Western frontier. It
was under that threat, in addition to the unimpaired
power of resistance of the native ruling class, with its
armed forces still largely intact, that the German Revo-
lution preferred the peaceful line of development, and
succeeded to a large extent. The alternative course
most probably would have meant its bloody suppres
31
sion, and a triumph of reaction perhaps to the extent
of a restoration of the monarchy under the protection
of the victorious Entente armies.
The revolution in Finland was not guaranteed
success by the collapse of Czarism and the decomposi-
tion of the Russian army. It was suppressed by an
invading German army. The Hungarian Revolution
also met a similar fate. The Austrian Empire had
disappeared. But the Rumanian army marched in to
overthrow the Soviet Republic of Hungary.
All those experiences corroborate the theoretical
judgment that the success of the Russian Revolution
was due to a fortuitous combination of circumstances .
Therefore, it cannot be regarded as a proof that insur- t
rection is an indispensable condition for the necessary
revolutionary change, even in our time. Later on, simi-
lar experience was made again in Germany in 1923, C
in Austria and Spain.
Now about dictatorship. The Soviet State found- a

ed by the Russian Revolution was not a proletarian dic to

tatorship. In the beginning, it was a dictatorship, in
so far as it functioned as the organ of power for over
whelming all resistance to the revolution and waging
the civil war and the war of intervention. While fight
ing for its very existence and in the midst of a war, a

every government assumes dictatorial power. But con

stitutionally, even in the very beginning, the Soviet
State had a very broad democratic basis, and it was
certainly democratic as compared with the Czarist State W
it had replaced. The Soviet, from the very beginning,
was a Soviet of Workers', Peasants' and Soldiers' te
Deputies. These three sections of society in contempo- th
32
rary Russia together constituted an overwhelming
majority of the people. How far effective power
was exercised by those sections of the population may
be a matter of doubt. But does the people exercise
effective power in the parliamentary democratic State ?
However, as soon as normal conditions were established,
the broader democratic character of the Soviet State
became evident to all unprejudiced observers. It cer-
tainly made for more effective democratic practice..
The point, however, is that the Russian Revolution
did not establish a proletarian dictatorship. It simply
could not. Because the proletariat was such a small
minority that it would be a fantastic dream on its part
to assume dictatorial power. Lenin knew that long
before the revolution. Therefore, he attached very great
importance to the peasantry. The Bolsheviks gave the
call for insurrection with the slogan " All power to the
Soviets " only when the All-Russian Peasants' Soviet
came over to them. So, the revolution broke out as
a democratic revolution. Had any effort been made
to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat, the revo-
lution would have been destroyed by the peasantry.
The success of the Russian Revolution and the conse-
quent advance towards the goal of Communism was
guaranteed by the democratic composition of the Soviet,
and not by the imaginary dictatorship of the proletariat.
Towards the end of 1920, it became evident that
the history of revolution of our time was not to be
written as expected upon the foundation of the Com-
munist International a year ago. The defeat of insur-
rections in Germany and Hungary had previously given
the same indication. But why should not the banner
33
3
of revolution be carried from one country to another ?
Napoleon did that after the French Revolution. The
Red Army was to do that in our time. Its defeat at
Warsaw in summer 1920 was yet another lesson of
history. But that also was taken as a temporary setback.
Europe, particularly Germany, still remained in the
grip of a severe economic crisis and unsettled political
conditions. They were very favourable for revolution ;
indeed, they made revolution urgently necessary. The
Communist International was to organize the army of
the impending revolution which would rise and capture
power and establish a proletarian dictatorship in the
near future.

Finally, by 1924, there could be no doubt about

the impossibility of revolutionary practice according
to the program of the Communist International,
framed under entirely different world conditions. The
perennial economic crisis and unsettled political con-
ditions led up to another revolutionary outbreak in
Germany in 1923. By that time, the Communist Party
had become a very powerful factor of the situation. It
commanded the support of a very large section of the
working class. The Soviet Government, through the
instrumentality of the Communist International, had
helped the German revolutionaries in every possible
way. The Red Army was to march in to their aid as
soon as they would deal the first blow. But it never
came to that. The German army was on the march
even before the insurrection had broken out. Any
action on the part of the Red Army in that critical
moment would have meant a war with Germany, who t
could count on the backing of the entire capitalist world.
Action according to the implications of the program
34
of the Communist International would have thus buried
the very prospect of revolution instead of promoting it.
That experience made a revision of the theoretical
presuppositions and political program of the Com-
munist International necessary. As a matter of fact,
a step was taken in that direction. The Communist
International issued the slogan of United Front. But
there was mental reservation. The United Front of
the working class was to be organized under the leader-
ship of the Communist Parties. It was not said so ex-
pressly. But it could not be otherwise so long as the
Communist Parties remained committed to the pro-
gram of armed insurrection and dictatorship of the
proletariat. Those two ideas constituted the difference
between the Second International and the Communist
International. Even after the latter was organized, the
majority of the workers in the European , countries
through their respective trade-unions remained attach-
ed to the Second International. So long as the Com-
munist International remained committed to the dis-
tinctive features of its program, it was only logical
to infer that a united front of the entire working class
was necessary for the execution of its program. So,
one step in the right direction was soon followed by
several in the opposite direction, and the united front
policy was replaced by the foundation of the Red Inter-
national of Labour Unions .

But the Soviet Government, now under the leader-

ship of Stalin, did not fail to learn the lessons of his-
tory. The Communist International was virtually dis-
solved even if it continued in formal existence. Tak-
ing note of the fact that there was little possibility of
35
revolutions taking place in other European countries
on the Russian model, the Soviet Government would
no longer run after the chimera, but turn its entire
attention to the problem of reconstruction at home. The
defeat of Trotzky was the landmark in the new orien-
tation of the Soviet Government. The ideal of Com-
munism was not abandoned. On the contrary, the Rus-
sians set about the task of realising the ideal where they
had the fullest freedom to do so. If the ideal could
be achieved in one country, it was bound to influence
the course of events in others. Stalin heralded the dis-
solution of the Communist International when he de-
clared that Communism was not a commodity for ex-
port. That was the return to the original scientific
position of Marxism. The Messianic spirit of the Com-
munist International had been a deviation from that posi-
tion. The new orientation of the Soviet Government, de-
termined by the experience gained in a number of coun-
tries, indicated the new path of revolution. It no longer
lay necessarily through insurrection and proletarian dic-
tatorship. The Russian Revolution was to influence
the course of history in our time indirectly, just as the
Great French Revolution did in its time.

But the Communist International continued in the

traditional way. Notwithstanding the new orientation
of the Soviet Government, the Russians still remained
its leaders. But they were too preoccupied with the
gigantic task of building Socialism in one sixth of the
globe to guide properly the general staff of the world
revolution in which they no longer believed. More-
over, they could not be altogether free from obsessions
which constituted the theoretical outfit and political
program of the Communist International.
36
 Ultimately, those obsessions blinded them, at
least in the beginning, to the revolutionary possibilities
of this war. In the beginning, they also condemned
this war as an imperialist war, and appear to have
believed that they could really keep out of it. But for
the traditions of the Communist International, the Rus-
sian leaders might have detected earlier the change of
conditions brought about by this war, and acted accord-
ingly. As it is, perhaps they committed a blunder by
staying out of the war until they were attacked. The
greater blunder committed by Hitler has spared the
world the possible disastrous consequences of the
blunder which resulted from the history and tradition
of the Communist International.

37
 IV

REPEATED
tradition ofexperience having
the Communist proved that
International was the
no
longer valid, that its program and plan of action
modelled after events of another epoch were no longer
practicable, its existence after 1924 was not only super-
fluous, but actually did more harm than help the at-
tainment of its ideals . Many intelligent Marxists and
loyal Communists detected the turning point in the his-
tory of revolution of our time and advocated a re-
orientation which might have prevented the painful
experiences and tragic events which resulted from the
mechanical application of the antiquated policy of the
Communist International. But they did not succeed.
Reason was overwhelmed by conformist fanaticism ;
dogmatism would listen to no argument. During the
period between 1925 and 1929 , the internal life
of the Communist International was subjected to a
regime of terror. The hope of a proletarian dictator-
ship exercising revolutionary terror throughout the
world having not been fulfilled according to the fond
expectations of the unthinking optimists, it came to be
practised at home. The tallest heads were the first to
fall. The Communist International was purged of all
intelligence and independent thinking, in the name of
discipline. Unquestioning acceptance of whatever the
Russians said came to be the criterion of Communist
loyalty. The pioneers, those who, with Lenin, had laid

38
the foundation of the Communist International, and its
leading foundation members, were first removed from
the leadership of the important national sections, to be
altogether expelled eventually. They were replaced
either by youthful enthusiasts or by sycophants. The
result was serious weakening, not only moral, but also
organizational.
Already at that time, it was anticipated by the
more far-sighted among the Communists themselves
that the International was doomed to be overwhelmed
by the crisis unless the entire world situation would
change in consequence of a revolution in a leading
country in the near future. The crisis essentially was
a crisis of leadership. Had there been a really Marx-
ist leadership, capable of adjusting its theories and
adopting its practice to changed world conditions, the
Communist International would not have committed
the series of fatal blunders during the years from
1925 to 1932, which seriously weakened the revolu-
tionary movement.
The crisis coincided with the beginning of the
post-revolutionary construction of the Soviet Union
which, in its turn, precipitated a crisis in the Russian
Communist Party. The elimination of a number of
more known leaders of the revolution was the result
of the latter crisis. Those leaders of the Russian Revo-
lution who had lived in exile were naturally more
known to the world. But the very fact that, for the
better part of their life, they were compelled to live
outside Russia kept them more or less ignorant of the
peculiarities of the Russian situation. Lenin was the
only exception, he being a man of universal intelligence.
But the same misfortune enabled them to feel the spirit
39
of internationalism even to the extent of unrealistic
fanaticism. They were the founders of the Communist
International. Trotzky was the personification of their
spirit. Under the leadership of Lenin's genius, they
all made valuable contributions to the success of the
revolution so long as it was only destructive. But
they thought in terms of world revolution. They firmly
believed that, once the revolution broke out in one
country, it would spread like wild-fire to others. So,
when a fortuitous combination of circumstances enabled
them to capture power in Russia, they regarded that
success only as a step towards world revolution which
was to take place according to a preconceived pattern.
The power captured in Russia was to be utilised for
bringing about revolution in other countries where con-
ditions were more favourable for the realisation of the
program of the Communist International.
Everything went well as long as the expectation
lasted. But by 1924, it became clear that the revolu-
tionary wave had subsided in Western Europe, and it
was bound to be followed by a more or less long period
of depression. That perspective presented the Russian t
leaders with a new problem. It was the problem of
post-revolutionary reconstruction : to build Socialism
in one country in the midst of a capitalist world. Waste
that possible ? The leaders of the revolution, whose to
names had been associated with that of Lenin, all be- b
lieved that it was not. That confronted them with an a
even more difficult question : If post-revolutionary re
construction was not possible except after world revo- a
lution, if Socialism could not be built in one country, the
what was the Soviet Government to do ? Was the li
Russian Communist Party then to lay down power and at
40
go underground or retire into exile, waiting for the
time when a revolutionary wave would sweep the whole
world simultaneously ?
I put this question to Trotzky in 1926 in a meet-
ing of the Executive of the Communist International.
That meeting resolved to remove him from the Execu-
tive. When that question, exposing the absurd impli-
cation of his challenge to the possibility of building
Socialism in one country, was put to him, Trotzky's
only reply was to keep quiet. He was not a man to
be easily silenced. His intelligence was extraordinary,
and his debating power was simply unrivalled. But
he had taken up an untenable position. And that was
the case with the other once famous leaders, such as
Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek etc., who had simply not
thought of the problems of post-revolutionary recon-
struction. Therefore, when the Soviet Government had
to tackle the problem, irrespective of whether the
theoretical possibility of its solution was visualised by
orthodox Marxists, the older leaders had simply to
make room for unknown men, who eventually proved
to be better and greater.
But the talent of the latter also was one-sided.
They were either old revolutionaries who had always
remained in the country and were therefore in close
touch with Russian reality, or they were men produced
by the revolution. Stalin belonged to the first group,
and the now well known " Stalin's young men were
the flower of the latter. But all of them were un-
acquainted with, or inadequately informed about,
the situation in other countries. They had not
lived in the hectic atmosphere of great expec-
tations about the coming world revolution breath-
41
ed by the older leaders who spent their livest
in exile ; they had not participated in the innumer- i
able conferences of the Second International where the
Russian exiles led by Lenin fanatically defended the
traditions of the French Revolution against the revision-
ism of the Social Democratic Marxists. They had F
fought for the revolution in Russia. They had waged the t
civil war to its bitter end. In the beginning, they also C

had shared the hope of revolution breaking out in other t

countries. But when that hope disappeared, they
thought that the wisest thing to do in the given situation C

was to reconstruct the economic organization in one

sixth of the globe. Whether that was possible or not,
was for them not a matter of theory, but of practice.
The epic experience of the civil war had given them t
the feeling that there was nothing really impossible. i
That was the spirit of Stalin, breathed into the Russian
t
Communist Party.
When the leadership of the Russian Communist t
Party passed on to those men, who were primarily con-
cerned with the problems of socialist reconstruction in
one country, they also became the leaders of the Com
munist International. Because the supremacy of the
Russian Communist Party was never disputed inside
the Communist International. That change in the a
leadership of the Communist International immediate-
ly produced two results. First-rank Russian leaders
could no longer personally guide the Communist Inter-
national, and whenever they did give any direction, it
was often wrong because of their defective understand-
ing of the situation in other countries. The older leaders
had visualised Russian problems from the point of
view of the situation in the Western European coun
42
i

tries. The new leaders projected Russian problems

into other countries. That unrealistic approach had a
Ivery adverse effect, particularly on the organizational
structure of the Communist International ; and its or-
ganizational structure, cast on the model of the
Russian Communist Party, contributed to its isola-
tion from the masses in other countries. The structure
of the Russian Communist Party was determined by
the problems of post-revolutionary reconstruction. It
was palpably absurd to cast the Communist Parties in
other countries on that model, because they had to deal
with entirely different problems.
The crisis of the Communist International, a crisis
to which it ultimately succumbed, resulted from its
internal contradiction, which itself was historically
determined. The contradiction was that the organiza-
tion as a whole tried to live simultaneously in two
periods of history-pre-revolutionary and post-revolu-
tionary. The Russian Communist Party constituting
its leadership lived in the post-revolutionary period,
whereas the rest of the organization lived in the pre-
revolutionary period. Nevertheless, the entire organ-
ization was to function as a homogeneous body, with a
uniform organisational structure, a centralised policy
and according to resolutions equally binding for all.
That was an impossible situation. But it could
not be changed because in that case there would be no
International. The contradiction could be eliminated
by the Russian Party getting out of the International.
In that case, the International would die in no time.
Because, after it had outlived its historical role, the
Communist International existed exclusively on the
43
authority of the Russian Communist Party and the
Soviet Government. Ultimately, it had to break down
under its own internal contradiction, which was incur- st
able. That is a vindication of the Marxist law of his- to
tory, notwithstanding blundering orthodoxy.
a
After the Russian Communist Party survived its
crisis, first class men disappeared from the actual
leadership of the Communist International. Engaged
in the super-human task of building Socialism in a a
backward country devastated by civil war, the Russian a
Communist Party could not spare any man of talent o
for leading the Communist International. Indifferent n
materials were delegated for that purpose. But they ne
carried the authority of the Russian Bolsheviks, and he
on that authority, not only commanded unquestioning t
conformity, but claimed infallibility. That was a deci- be
sive check of intellectual growth on the part of other to
parties. Any disagreement with the Russians was a A
deviation ; as that could not be avoided by men of ec
intelligence and independence, with all their devotion la
to the cause and concern for organizational solidarity, tr
they came under the axe of mechanical discipline. By to
1928, the leadership of the Communist International In
thus came to be composed exclusively of indifferent
Russians and their nominees from other parties. Such r
a leadership was bound to be incompetent and commit
the fatal blunders which marked the subsequent history
of the Communist International.
The whole tragic story cannot be narrated in this e
obituary note. The history of the Communist Interna.
tional is still to be written. That contribution to con
temporary history may now be made by qualified and
fully informed persons whose tongue was hitherto tied
44
by the sense of loyalty to the organization to which they
spiritually belonged even after the formal relation was
severed. The silence was also caused by the desire not
to cause the Russians any embarrassment or incon-.
venience. Any criticism would serve the purpose of
anti-Communist and anti-Soviet propaganda .

The first blunder was theoretical,9. and the Russians

contributed to it very largely owing to their inadequate
acquaintance with the situation abroad. It was the
failure to appreciate fully the consequence of the defeat
of the German Revolution in 1923. The defeat might
not have been conclusive if American Imperialism had
not intervened. But the crisis of 1923, which almost
helped revolution to triumph in Germany, convinced
the victorious Entente Powers that, unless the German
bourgeoisie were put back on their feet, Western Europe
could not be freed from the menace of Bolshevism .
American capital was poured into Germany, and the
economic crisis in that country was overcome by a
large-scale reconstruction and rationalization of indus-
tries. The Locarno Pact politically restored Germany
to the status of a Great Power. But the Communist
International still hugged the hope of world revolution,
and its theoreticians interpreted the end of the German
crisis as only partial stabilisation. The Social Demo-
cratic leaders did not accept that palpably erroneous
view. Therefore, the entire propaganda of the Com-
munist International was directed against the Social
Democratic Party, which was accused of creating
illusions for the working class with the object of sabot-
aging the revolution just around the corner. The fact,
however, was that the great bulk of the German indus-
trial workers followed the Social- Democratic Party ;

45
consequently, the fierce attack upon the latter only
isolated the Communist Party from the working class.
In 1923, its membership had risen above 300,000 ;
and some of the most powerful trade-unions were under C
its control. In 1925, thanks to the new policy, the he
membership fell below 50,000 ; and, driven out of all
the large trade-unions, the handful of Communists
organized the Red International of Labour Unions. re

During those fateful years, the Russian Party

was absorbed with the struggle between old and new
leaders. As pioneers and founders of the International,
the old leaders had counted on the support of the
parties outside of Russia in their struggle against S
Stalin, whom they accused of a desire to liquidate the ir
revolution. In prder to disarm his opponents, and e
isolate them in the International also, Stalin did not h
discourage the revolutionary illusion, although already Hi
in 1925 he had lost faith in the possibility of revolution ma
in Western Europe on the classical model. Co

ra
The second grave mistake was underestimation
of the danger of Fascism. Although Mussolini's Black
Shirts had captured power in Italy years ago, and 0

Fascism had spread in a number of smaller European O

countries, it became a general menace in 1928 when
the National-Socialist party suddenly became a rapid-
ly rising factor in German politics. It was the con- ee
sequence of the restoration of German capitalism with e
American help, the historical importance of which the ne
Communist International had failed to appreciate.for
Therefore, when the subsided wave of revolution was on
eventually followed by a rising tide of counter-revolu
tion, the Communist International ridiculed those who
46
!

sounded the alarm with the complacent slogan that

66

Germany is not Italy." But Hitler marched in the

proverbial seven-league boots, and before long 4

Communist theoreticians appreciated Fascism as a

necessary stage of revolutionary development and
expounded the following theory of catastrophe : The
democratic illusion of the masses stood on the way to
revolution ; the Weimar Republic kept up that illusion ;
let the Fascists smash the Weimar Republic and free the
masses from the democratic illusion, and then the
Communists would step in to make the revolution.
That fantastic theory, of course, presented the
Social-Democratic Party again as the devil of the
drama : Social Democracy was a greater enemy of
revolution than Fascism. That was not a mere fantasy.
The theory was put into practice when, on the eve of
Hitler's advent to power, the Communist Party actually
made a united front with the Fascists as against the
Social-Democrats, on the occasion of the great Berlin
transport workers' strike in 1932. When the history
of the Communist International comes to be written,
it will have to pronounce the harsh verdict that the
Communist International helped Fascism to capture
power in Germany.

Previous to that, an equally serious mistake had

been committed in China. Even after the revolution had
been defeated, for not taking the initiative in the oppor-
tune moment, the call was issued for a general armed
uprising, which culminated in the short-lived Canton
Commune. That adventurist experiment cost millions
of lives still to be counted. That extremely costly ex-
periment ultimately compelled the Communist Party of
47
China to fall back on the policy of co-operating with
general democratic development, a course which it
should have taken to recover from the unwarranted
defeat of 1927 . ::

The resolutions of the Communist International

regarding India since 1928 were the height of stupidity.
Very inadequately informed about the conditions in
the colonial countries, Lenin had attributed an
important revolutionary role to the nationalist move-
ments in those countries. He regarded the bourgeoisie
in the colonial countries as a revolutionary class.
Other founder-members of the International had
questioned his views. Nevertheless, there was general
agreement on the policy that the movement for the
liberation of the colonial countries was to be support-
ed, particularly by the working class of the respective
:
imperialist countries. ㅏ

Lenin expressed his views in 1920. During the

following years, the situation in the colonial countries,
particularly in India, changed greatly. By 1928, there
could not be any illusion about the revolutionary role
of the nationalist bourgeoisie. The fact of their
seeking a compromise with Imperialism could not be
disputed. But a Marxist should discover the cause of L
that fact. The cause was gradual disappearance of the
monopoly of imperialist finance and the consequent T
" decolonisation " of India. The benefit of the process
all went to Indian capitalism. The Communist Inter- m
national refused to accept this perfectly Marxist view R
of the changed situation. The Sixth World Congress
in 1928 condemned the expounders of the theory of y
decolonisation as apologists of Imperialism. Blissfully de
48
ignoring the fundamental doctrine of Marxism that
every economic system decays and develops internal
contradictions , the theoreticians of the Communist
International regarded Imperialism as something
immutable and imperishable. Kuusinen was one of
the Communist casuists of that time. He is no longer
there to sign the death warrant of the Communist
International. In the meantime, he had fallen a
victim to his revolutionary illusions. Had he been
alive, physically or spiritually, he might realise what
nonsense he talked when he conducted the crusade
against the decolonisation theory in the Sixth World
Congress. He maintained that the Indian bourgeoisie
was brutally suppressed by Imperialism . Yet, the
Sixth World Congress of the Communist International
passed a long resolution about India in which the
Indian people was warned against the nationalist
bourgeoisie betraying them, and the Communist Party
was directed to develop the Indian Revolution with the
slogan of Soviet Republic and dictatorship of the
proletariat !
Acting on that stupid self-contradictory resolution,
the infantile Communist Party of India denounced the
National Congress as an organ of counter-revolution
just when, as a loose mass movement, it might be
brought under a progressive democratic leadership .
The idea of Constituent Assembly was also denounced
as counter-revolutionary, because how could Com-
munists demand a Constituent Assembly after the
Russians had disbanded one in Leningrad twenty years
ago ! Such was the intellectual degeneration caused
by the desire to imitate the Russians in every single
detail.

49
 The Seventh World Congress in 1935 reversed the
whole policy on the strength of a report of an English
Communist who had spent several years in an Indian
jail. The revolutionary role of the Indian nationalist
bourgeoisie was again discovered, and the Communist
International recommended the grossly non-Marxian
policy of creating the " National Front".
For India, the Communist International was an
unmitigated evil. Its Indian section has done more
harm to the cause of the Indian Revolution than any
other single factor. Composed of a handful of half-
baked youngsters, it could not do so if the authority
of the Communist International and of the Soviet
Government standing behind it, did not enable them
to make an appeal to the romanticism of the middle-
class youth. The liquidation of the Communist
International can be expected to free the progressive
elements from a fascination which prevented them to
appraise the realities of the Indian situation. The
disappearance of the Communist International will
strengthen the position of a realistic revolutionary
leadership in this country.

50
 V

disrupted bytheits Communist

ULTIMATELY, International was
internal contradiction. The
final disruption began with the conclusion of the Soviet-
German Pact. The contradiction was between the
post-revolutionary tasks of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and the pre-revolutionary problems which
confronted the rest of the International. The existence
of the Soviet Union was the precondition for the
accomplishment of the task of post-revolutionary
socialist construction. Therefore, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union guiding the policy of the
Soviet Government was deeply concerned with
diplomatic and military considerations .
In critical periods of history, diplomacy can
serve the purpose of defence. The years immediately
preceding this war were such a period. In the
beginning, Soviet diplomacy persistently tried to form
an anti-fascist alliance which, in addition to protect-
ing world democracy, would guarantee its own defence
against the dreaded attack by Nazi Germany. When
those efforts ultimately failed, the preparations for the
defence of the Soviet Union were not quite complete.
The Soviet leaders had anticipated that dangerous
position. In view of the recently concluded Anti-
Comintern Pact, it was also to be anticipated that
Japan would attack the Soviet Union from the East
simultaneously with the Nazi aggression from the West.
As a matter of fact, the Soviet leaders believed that
51
the task of building Socialism in one country was
bound to be eventually followed by the greater task of
defending the Socialist Soviet Union against a
concerted attack of the entire capitalist world. The
Munich Pact and the subsequent breakdown of the
Moscow negotiations were regarded by them as the
signal for the apprehended attack. They might be
able to fight Nazi Germany alone. But they were
naturally reluctant to risk a war with the entire capi-
talist world so soon. In that critical situation, they
fell back on the weapon of diplomacy, and concluded
the non-aggression pact with Germany.
It was a matter of simple common sense that the
Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was not meant to
initiate the policy of fraternisation between Communism
and Fascism throughout the world . As a matter of
fact, the pact not only warded off the Nazi attack on
the Soviet Union, but effectively checked Fascist
aggression towards the East. It not only broke the
Anti -Comintern Pact, at least for the time being ; it
also prevented the greater danger of the spiritual
Fascisation of the democratic Powers as prepared by
Chamberlain's appeasement policy, which had just
culminated in the Munich Pact.
But the Communist Parties outside the Soviet
Union interpreted the Soviet-German Pact in an
entirely different way as an aliance between
Communism and Fascism against British Imperialism.
Habituated to follow the Russians slavishly, they
believed that the policy of the Russian Communist
Party must be practised by all the other sections of
the Communist International. The simple fact that
these latter were living in an entirely different period

52
 of history, and had therefore a different set of
problems to solve, was clean forgotten.
In a few days, the war broke out and the spiritual
confusion of the Communist International was complete.
Having for nearly twenty years stood at the forefront
of the struggle against the danger of rising Fascism,
all on a sudden the Communists became fanatical
advocates of peace with Hitler. They continued that
insane policy even when the Fascist hordes overran
one country after another, and the working class of
entire Europe came under the iron heels of Fascism.
The death warrant of the Communist International was
signed by its own hand when the Communist Parties
forgot that Fascism was the instrument created with
the purpose of defending the decayed capitalist order
against the coming revolution. The verdict of history
is that, upon the outbreak of this war, the Communist
International betrayed the cause of revolution. The
more charitable verdict would be that the Communist
- International was the first casualty of this war, against
which it had warned the world for years. No useful
purpose would be served by letting the stinking carcass
lie about. The sooner it was cleared away, the better.
The mechanical somersault of the Communist
Parties after the Soviet Union was attacked by the
Nazis proved their spiritual degeneration more con-
clusively, instead of rehabilitating them. It proved
that the Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union
were mere marionettes. An international organization
composed of such bodies could not serve any useful
purpose. The Russian Revolution had created in one
country conditions for building up Socialism. There,
the Communist Party has a role to perform. But in
53
the rest of the world, events did not develop according
to the expectations aroused by the Russian Revolution.
In those countries, the Communist Parties were to
organize the revolution on the Russian model. As the
events did not shape as desired, and they are less
likely to do so in future than in the past, there
is nothing for the Communist Parties to do. Only the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union remains as the
creator and the creation of the Russian Revolution .
The Communist International proved to be an abortion
of the Revolution. Therefore it could not be fitted
into the scheme of the positive outcome of the latter.
As a matter of fact, for a long time it stood on the
way of the Russian Revolution influencing the world
as it could do under the conditions of the world of our
time. Its disappearance therefore will only help the
world to advance towards the goal which has been set
before it by the Russian Revolution.
The internal contradiction which brought the e
Communist International to grief prevented a homo-
geneous theoretical development on the basis of the
teachings of Marx and Lenin. Theories degenerate L
into dead dogmas, if they are not adjusted to news
experience and revised accordingly from time to time. h
After the Russian Revolution, Marxian theory had to th
be adjusted to two different sets of experiences. Ons
the one hand, there were the experiences gained from
a revolutionary struggle, from civil war and from the p
subsequent process of reconstruction. On the other t
hand, there was the experience of a series of defeated a
revolutions, of triumphant reaction and of a new
alignment of forces consequent upon the rise of E
Fascism . H

54
 The Russians developed Marxian theories with
the aid of their experience. They were naturally so
very engrossed with their own experience that they
could not correctly appraise the value of events in
other parts of the world. Consequently, their theoreti-
cal contribution was one-sided. It covered the
problems of post-revolutionary reconstruction, and
more particularly, economic problems. The more
fundamental aspects of Marxian theory were stili
regarded by them as immutable dogmas. Those
aspects could be tested only by the experience gained
in other countries where history did not fit into what
is believed to be the Marxist scheme.

As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a

Marxist scheme of history. Marx did not cast the
horoscope of mankind. He formulated certain funda-
mental principles and outlined some laws of social
evolution. But his philosophical conclusions were
deduced from a scientific knowledge nearly a hundred
years old, and his political doctrines were determined
by world conditions which have radically changed
since his time. The Russians, since the revolution,
have been living in a world of their own creation. But
the Communists in other countries had to adjust them-
selves to conditions created by others. Therefore, they
were ' in a better position to test the theoretical
presuppositions of Marxism by the experiences of our
time. It was for them to develop the more fundamental
aspects of Marxism which the Russians, living in a
world of their own, could simply accept as dogmas.
Because, they did not affect their practice, as regards
which they had the fullest freedom.
55
 Theoretical constructions are always made before
the revolution. The philosophical principles and
political doctrines, which influenced and guided
European life in the nineteenth century, had been
formulated over a period of more than hundred years
before the French Revolution. Similarly, Lenin and
other Russians made valuable contributions to Marxism
while they were preparing for the Revolution. Once
they captured power, they were engrossed with
practical matters. The time came for them to rebuild
the world instead of building up theories. Lenin left
his book on ' State and Revolution ' incomplete,
because the time came for revolutionary deeds instead
of elaborating revolutionary theories.
The honourable task of laying down the theore-
tical foundation for revolutionary practice in the
changed conditions of the world of our time fell to the
Communist Parties outside the Soviet Union. But the
Communist International made it impossible for them
to accomplish that task. It did not equip them for the
purpose. To imitate and obey the Russians came to
be the criterion of Marxist orthodoxy. All Communists
owe allegiance to the home of Socialism. But from
that it does not follow that loyalty to the Russians
makes one necessarily a Communist. Yet, the
Communist International set up that standard and
consequently obstructed the intellectual development
of its adherents .

This negative achievement of the Communist

International had its repercussions on the Russians
themselves. Recognised by Communists throughout
the world as the final authority on all philosophical
56
and scientific matters, they themselves experienced
spiritual stultification. In the given situation, that was
inevitable. They reacted marvellously to the problems
of post-revolutionary reconstruction. But their
approach to the political and economic problems of
other countries was still determined by old ideas,
which had been invalidated by changed conditions of
the world, the belated recognition of which ultimately
caused the dissolution of the Communist International.
That wrong approach on their part was also inevitable.
Because they did not directly experience the problems
in other countries, and therefore did not have the
incentive to thought which would indicate the correct
approach under the given conditions . They could
make the experience indirectly, through the Communists
on the spot. But the latter behaved as projected egos
of the Russians. They lived in the midst of changed
conditions as men in the moon, thinking in terms of an
imaginary world to come, or a world long past. In
this respect, the Communist International failed the
Russians also . It did not keep them in touch with the
changing conditions of the world. That spiritual
isolation was more dangerous than the political isola-
tion of the Soviet Union brought about by the conspi-
racy of the capitalist world. The consequence of that
evil was that, in a critical period, the Soviet leaders
themselves were misguided by the obsessions of the
Communist International instead of guiding the other
Communist Parties on the right way.

It was a vicious circle. The predominating posi-

tion of the Russians in the Communist International
was fully deserved and historically determined . But
that fact, in its turn, prevented the intellectual growth

57
of the revolutionary movement, which was historically
necessary to supplement the practical achievements of
the Russians. Finally, the spiritual stultification of the
Communist Parties made of the Communist Interna-
tional a still-born child. As the Russians could not
possibly abdicate their position in the Communist In-
ternational without knocking the very basis off this
latter, its internal contradiction was bound to disrupt
it ultimately. 1

The theoretical weakness of the Russian leaders,

who after all were the leaders of the Communist Inter-
national, was determined by the combination of cir-
cumstances described above. The weakness expressed
itself in the failure to appraise the relation between
the objective and subjective factors of history. By
declaring that man is the maker of his destiny, Marx
appeared to have attached greater importance to the
subjective factor. The reaction to the fatalist theory t
of gradualism also laid emphasis on the subjective
factor. Consequently, in course of time, orthodox
Marxists became converts to the doctrine that the history
of the world is the biography of great men. The his
tory of the world of our time was determined by the p
evil genius of a few imperialist statesmen conspiring
to destroy the Soviet Union-that was the simplified a
approach to all the problems of contemporary history.t
It was forgotten by the orthodox Marxists that this sim- (
plified approach negativated the fundamental principle
of the entire theoretical system of Marx. The prin
ciple is that thought is determined by the conditions of
physical existence. So, after all, the objective factor F
is the predominating. Future events are to be anticite
pated in the light of a searching analysis of the anatomy P
58
and physiology of the world as it is ; the motives of
men at the helm of affairs, their goodness or badness,
are a secondary factor.
The bitter experience of their relation with the
capitalist world made the Russian leaders deviate from
this essential principle of Marxism. That was quite
natural . After all, they are human beings. But bitter-
ness and anger against the treachery of individual states-
men or imperialist governments should not have broken
them asunder from theoretical moorings. Yet, exactly
that almost happened to them in the earlier period of
the war. The pact with Germany was a necessary dip-
lomatic device, grossly misunderstood at that time. But
subsequent events have justified it. Once the pact was
concluded, it had to be scrupulously observed, if the
expected advantage was not to be forfeited. That must
have prevented the Communist International to instruct
the Communist Parties in other countries how to behave.

But all those considerations do not justify certain

passages of Molotov's speech made after his return
from Berlin. That was not an ordinary propagandist
performance. On that occasion, a dispassionate analy-
sis of the given relation of forces could have been made,
and that might have served as guidance, at least for
the more intelligent Communists in other countries.
On that occasion, Molotov characterised this war as
"the second imperialist war ", and that light-hearted,
or theoretically wrong, pronouncement of his drove the
Communist International almost into the arms of
Fascism. Flying in the face of the known facts of
recent history, Molotov held British Imperialism res-
ponsible for the war and thus, by implication, exoner
59
ated Fascism. Theoretically, that was a crass contra-
diction of the correct Communist view, previously ex-
pressed emphatically, that Fascism means war.
Only a wrong theoretical approach could charac-
terise this war as an imperialist war. An imperialist
war, strictly speaking is an inter-imperialist war ; that
is, a struggle between two Imperialist Powers for world
domination. To call this war an imperialist war, there-
fore, was to identify Fascism with Imperialism. Such
a view is entirely un-Marxist. Imperialism and Fasc-
ism both have for their common denominator capital-
ism. But they mark two distinctive stages of capital-
ism. Capitalism creates Fascism as the weapon for
its last defence, only when it can no longer provide the
foundation for Imperialism. Fascism was the banner
under which all the reactionary and counter-revolution-
ary forces, known with different names previously,
gathered. Therefore, on the rise of Fascism, there was
a new polarisation of forces throughout the world. The
new world conditions, which eventually compelled the
dissolution of the Communist International, were creat-
ed by the rise of Fascism. The Russian leaders made
the mistake of not recognising that fact early enough.
Notwithstanding all the stupidities of the Com-
munist International, and theoretical mistakes on their
part, the Russian leaders could not possibly have any
illusion about the intents and purposes of Fascism.
Fully knowing that a fierce clash with that avowed
enemy was inevitable, they only wanted to have time
to make adequate preparations. As a matter of fact,
I have always been of the opinion that the Russians
wanted to attack first. But subjectivism, born of the
60
traditions of the Communist International, persuaded
them to wait too long. The ultimate outcome of the
Russian Revolution, which opened a new era of history,
was bound to place the Soviet Union at the forefront of
the world of our time. This war provided the Soviet
Government with the opportunity to place itself at the
head of a world democratic alliance. It could have
done so inspite of the machinations which culminated
in the Munich Pact. The outbreak of the war changed
the whole situation. There was the opportunity for
the Soviet Union again to take the initiative, and tha
time the last word would be with the peoples of England
and France. When at last Hitler set his war machine
moving, and began to overrun one country after another,
ultimately threatening France and Britain, the field was
clear for the Soviet Government to take the lead. The
bulk of the Nazi army was moving towards the West.
Just at that moment, a powerful Red Army-about a
hundred divisions-was standing within a striking dis-
tance of Berlin. If the Soviet Government had struck
at that moment, its isolation brought about by fifteen
years' conspiracy, would have ended immediately, and
it would have been hailed by world democracy as the
leader in the anti-Fascist war.

Most probably, the step was not taken for mili-

tary considerations. Preparations were not yet quite
complete. But France was at stake. It was the choice
between the entire French army and the vast industrial
resources of France, on the one hand, and the possi-
bility of creating afew more divisions of the Red Army.
Evidently, even from the purely military point of view,
the risk was worth taking. Politically, the Franco-
Soviet Pact would have been forthwith restored in a

61
much stronger form. Russian action would have
strengthened the hand of the progressive elements in
the political and military circles of France. Fifth
Columnists, capitulators and traitors would have been
isolated. From the very beginning of the war, Hitler
would have been placed in the position which he has
been always so very anxious avoid : he would have
been compelled to fight on two fronts. The result of
that mistake on the part of the Russians was the com-
plete isolation, the end of which Stalin welcomed in
his speech upon the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union.
That almost fatal blunder on the part of the Rus-
sians in that most critical period of contemporary his-
tory was due, in the last analysis, to the antiquated theo-
retical presuppositions of the Communist International.
As long as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
remained a member of the Communist International,
it could not be immune from its theoretical weaknesses
and obsolete traditions. Once the mistake was committed,
it might have had its full consequences. But there history
stepped in to correct man's mistake. Marxism was
vindicated. Having cast for the Soviet Union the
honourable role of leading world democracy in the
struggle against reaction fighting its last battles, history
could not allow itself to be deceived by human frailties.
What the Russians themselves had always antici-
pated happened just when perhaps they believed that
it might not happen at all. Most probably they be-
lieved that, having overrun Europe, Hitler's war
machine would turn eastwards and destroy the British
Empire. Suppose events did take that course, what
would be Hitler's next objective ? He would turn to-
wards his avowed enemy. Only, in the meantime he
62
would be so enormously strengthened that with all the
preparations it would be almost impossible for the
Soviet Union to resist the onslaught. It is simply dread-
ful to think that subjectivism and miscalculation on the
part of the Russians drove the world to the brink of
such a dangerous precipice. But the mistake on the
part of the Russians was interpreted by Hitler as a sign
of weakness, and he decided to strike in good time. A
miscalculation on the part of counter-revolution can-
celled the mistake committed in the camp of revolution.
The scale of events was tipped, and the world was saved.
The salvation has now been celebrated by the dissolu-
tion of the Communist International, the antiquated
theoritical pre-suppositions of which persuaded the
Russians to go so far in a dangerous direction.

63
 VI

HE dissolution of the Communist International

THdoes not mean abandonment of the ideal of Com-
munism which has been set before the civilised man-
kind by history itself. Indeed, it is not an ideal in
the sense of something desirable. It is a state of social
organization which mankind is bound to reach of
necessity, in course of its endless progress. Being a
historical necessity for the entire mankind-the ideal
of Communism cannot disappear, even if all the pro-
fessed Communists turned their back on it or gave it
up as unattainable.
The spirit of internationalism also remains. The
dissolution of the Communist International is not a
vindication of nationalism. As a matter of fact, Com.
munist internationalism is not an antithesis of national-
ism. The Communist International, from its very be
ginning, stood for national freedom of all peoples. But
Marxists do not regard any state of social or political
organization as final. There was a time when this
Marxist view of history was not generally accepted.
But today there is not one historian, who studies and
teaches his subject as a science, seriously disputing
that history, being a record of continuous progress,
knows no finality. Therefore nationalism is only a
stage of social progress, as transitory as any other
stage .
The spirit of internationalism is to be distinguish-
ed from any particular plan of action on an interna
64
tional scale. The Communist International was organ-
ized with such a plan. It was not a plan of interna
tional action as a matter of principle. It was a plan
of a particular kind of international action, to be car-
ried out not by mankind as a whole, but by a certain
class of people in every country. The impossibility
of such an action, under the given conditions of the
world of our time, having been demonstrated by the
experience of two decades, the plan has been abandoned.
Evidently, that does not prove any defect in the idea
of internationalism. On the contrary, the dissolution
of the Communist International has been brought about
by the realisation that internationalism must be prac-
tised on a higher plane, embracing the entire mankind.
This is not a belated wisdom a shamefaced recti-
fication of a wrong idea. Practice of internationalism
on a higher plane was not possible previously. The
perspective of the Communist International, therefore,
was necessarily limited by the conditions and possibili-
ties of the time. The latter having changed, the pers,
pective has correspondingly broadened. The histori-
cally necessary struggle for the liberation of mankind,
an ideal to be realised through the reorganization of
society on a higher level, can now have the advantage
of a larger adherence than could be imagined before.
The program and the organization of the Commu-
nist International excluded this possibility. Therefore,
its continued existence would have retarded progress
towards its own goal, and consequently would have done
harm to the spirit of internationalism .
The ideal remains. Only the method of attaining
it must be changed. That is the significance of the
65
5
dissolution of the Communist International. Changed
world conditions compel a corresponding change in the
method of attaining the goal. More concretely speak-
ing, revolution-that is to say, a reorganization of t
society-still remains a necessity. The necessity is o
felt more keenly today than ever before, and by an
increasingly larger section of society. The feeling of
its necessity by a larger section of society not only
increases the chances of its success, but opens up new i
ways before it. The end is a historically necessary re-
organization of society. It is immaterial how that w
end is attained. Previously, there appeared to be no
other way than the traditional methods of revolution. C
The changed world conditions have opened up new
ways. The resistance will be much less in the future.
The camp of counter-revolution is disintegrating. De
Decay and decomposition reduce its power of resistance.
Past revolutions were associated with violence, not bee
cause revolutions are inherently violent, but because of
the fierceness of resistance to it. In the absence ofth
fierce and fanatical resistance, the impending revolu- of
tion will cease to have violent forms and terrifying on
h
appearances.

It is becoming evident to all thinking men that or

capitalist economy has exhausted all its progressive pos- er
sibilities, having created conditions for a better social act
order ; that its restoration is not compatible with ideals
of democratic freedom and peaceful progress . It is
also being realised by persons not blinded by greedi- ce
ness and preconceived ideas that, if this war could pos-
sibly end in the restoration of the status quo, the peace er
would be only an armed truce, to be soon disturbed by
a still more catastrophic war. Moreover, the condi-to
66
 tions of the post-war world will preclude the normal
practice of capitalism. Reconstruction of the world
on the basis of capitalist production will make the in-
troduction of Fascist practices inevitable. These latter
practices were introduced in Germany and other coun-
tries not due to any innate perversity on their part.
After it had exhausted all its social-usefulness, capital-
ism could be maintained only by those practices. There-
fore, this war has confronted the entire world with the
choice between Fascism and Socialism. Democracy
will survive this war only by becoming Social Demo-
: cracy. And that is only a less frightening name for
■ Communism.

Even before this war, and particularly during the

period of recurring crises between the two great wars,
the necessity for a radical reorganization of society was
felt by all thinking and progressive minded people.
The Marxist criticism of capitalism, and the prediction
that eventually the latter must be replaced by a system
of economy based on common ownership, were gain-
ing ground among people not directly interested in
the established order of society. But they were doubt-
ful about the practicability of socialist economy. The
prejudice that profit motive is the condition for all en-
terprise and initiative confused thought and paralysed
action.

Eventually, one sixth of the world became the

scene of socialist reconstruction. The unprecedented
experiment was watched with suspicion, doubt and in-
terest. Again, prejudice prevented a correct apprecia-
tion. Nevertheless, news about the socialist reconstruc-
tion in the Soviet Union spread throughout the world,
67
influencing economic thought and dispelling lingering
doubt about the possibility of shifting the entire econo-
mic system of a country from the basis of private pro-
perty to that of common ownership. Finally, came this
war, and presented the Soviet Union with the opportu-
nity to stand what can be called the crucial test of a
gigantic social experiment. There could be no doubt
that all the cherished human qualities, collective as
well as individual, have flourished there in the atmos-
phere of Socialism. The achievement of socialist eco-
nómy can now be measured by the traditional standards.
Communism could not only perform military miracles,
but, as Lord Breaverbrook declared a year ago, it pro-
duced the greatest generals of our time. Coming from
one of the most successful capitalists of our time, that
candid confession was of decisive historical importance.
There could no longer be any doubt about the practic-
ability of Socialism. The recognition of the triumph
of Socialism is the outcome of this war. And it is
going to be the significance of the victory over Fascism.
tr But there still remained another obstacle. It was
fear. The Communist International was a spectre.
Nearly a hundred years ago Karl Marx wrote : “Com-
munism stalks over Europe like a spectre." Then,
capitalism was a rising system which appeared to be
full of endless possibilities, and consequently occa-
sioned great expectations. Anything that challenged
capitalism was regarded as an evil-a threat to civi-
lisation. Since then, things have changed. Having
exhausted all its progressive possibilities, capitalism,
in the form of Fascism, became the enemy of modern
civilisation. It ceased to be regarded as something
sacrosanct. Everybody admitted that there was some
68
 thing wrong with the established order, and the neces
sity of reform was generally felt. Marxists knew that
the crisis was coming, that the revolution would take
place of necessity. Communism is the positive outcome
of capitalism. Why should it appear as something
fearful, and thus delay its own general acceptance ?
So long as revolution was a thing of the future, it had
to be heralded, and its necessity proved. But once it
▸ is there, why not let it take its own course ? Let it be,
instead of talking about it and thus striking terror in
the heart of people who are willy-nilly involved in the
process of revolution. The dissolution of the Com-
munist International is an act of revolutionary realism,
to remove the last obstacle to the triumph of revolution.
This bold act could be taken and properly appreciated
only by the revolutionary realists who have discovered
the new ways of revolution.
+ Revolutionaries do not believe in the possibility
of persuading the opponent with arguments. Particu-
larly, Marxists cannot have that belief. Men's ideas
are determined by the conditions of their physical exis-
tence, which include social relations. Therefore, argu-
ments cannot change ideas. The change can be brought
about only by a change in the conditions of existence.
In other words, arguments advanced by individuals may
not carry conviction ; but the arguments of history can-
not be disregarded. Because, the sanction behind the
arguments of history has changed social conditions,
which include the relation of forces on the national as
well as on the international scale.
Fascism is a product of capitalism. It is an
instrument created for the defence of the decayed
capitalist society. Therefore it was only natural for
69
the capitalist powers, notwithstanding the democratic
form of their governments, to aid and abet the rise of to
Fascism. From the capitalist point of view, this war
should not have taken place. It should have been avoid- *
ed at all cost. No effort was spared to do so.. But the
logic of history overwhelmed subjective efforts to arrest
the necessary march of events. It was a veritable case
of man proposing and God disposing ; only it was not
the God with a long beard sitting in the Seventh Heaven ;
it was the irresistible impact of the objective forces of
history. The outbreak of this war, defying all the
frantic efforts from both sides, finally proved the neces-
sity of revolution. Everything necessary may not be
inevitable. But in this case, it was inevitable to a very
high degree of probability. Otherwise, this war might
have been avoided .

Whatever may be the immediate outcome of this

war, a military defeat of the Axis Powers will mean e
a severe disruption and disorganization of the forces
of counter-revolution marshalled in such a formidable
array. Fascism as a social tendency may not be imme-
diately destroyed . That will depend on the nature of
the military outcome of this war. Military defeat,
πα
however, will deprive Fascism of political power, and
consequently emasculate it to a very large degree .
Eventual destruction of Fascism will mean destruction men
of the instrument created to defend the decayed capi- b
talist system . Marx's prophesy is being fulfilled before
our very eyes Capitalism is digging its own grave.
Capitalist Governments having undertaken the task of
destroying the last citadel of capitalism, the necessity
of maintaining a separate international organization ca
as the General Staff of the world revolution disappears.

70
 This highly interesting, and entirely unexpected,
process is taking place without the forces involved in
it being conscious of its implications. Most probably,
they are still confident that nothing of the kind will
happen. But the predispositions and desires of men
occupying positions of great power have once been over- 1

whelmed by the objective forces of history. There will

be much greater chance of that happening once again,
when this war has set free still more powerful forces.
In this situation, co-operation is bound to promote the
cause of revolution and accelerate progress. Particu-
larism will only breed suspicion and divide the forces
which should pull together to take advantage of the
most favourable fortuitous combination of circum-
stances . That consideration has led to the dissolution
of the Communist International .

But we need not entertain illusions. It will not

be an easy sailing. There will be ups and downs in
the process. It may be long or short. But one thing
is certain : For its own defence, democracy must be-
come Social Democracy. " And that, after all, is how
Marx called Communism. Therefore, it is not a wish-
ful statement to say that the dissolution of the Com-
munist International does not mean turning away from
the goal of Communism. On the contrary, an instru-
ment suitable for a method of action which could not
embrace all the progressive forces, becomes antiquated
when, owing to the tremendous accession of strength,
the revolution is within the reach of its goal.
Revolutions take place of necessity, because perio-
dical reorganization of society is in the nature of
human progress. A revolution may take place through
71
the instrumentality of a certain class of people. But
it takes place for general welfare. Otherwise, it would
not be a historical necessity. Modern civilization being
the high water mark of human progress . until
now, it creates greater possibilities of further
progress than ever before. Consequently, the
need for social changes opening up new
channels of progress is felt in the modern civilized
society by a much larger section of people than in the
earlier periods of history. When the forces of revolu-
tion swell to the extent of becoming the majority, the
resistance to the impending social change becomes cor-
respondingly weaker, and the ways of the revolution
change accordingly. When it takes place by consent,
it loses its terror. Consent, however, is not always
given willingly. But it may result from the pressure
of circumstances which cannot possibly be controlled.
The world is under such a pressure today. Therefore,
new ways of revolution are opening up.
These unexpected possibilities cannot be visualis-
ed except in the light of a proper appreciation of the
historical value of Marxism. The greatest injustice
done to Marxism by its orthodox exponents is to cha-
racterise it as the ideology of a particular class. Marx
himself disowned, as it were in anticipation, such a
narrow interpretation of his teachings. He said that
a class became revolutionary when its interests coin-
cided with the interests of the entire society. It is also
a fundamental principle of Marxism that the ideology
of a particular class is determined by its position in
society. Therefore, the proletariat could not be the
leader of modern society if its ideology was not the
philosophy of the future of mankind.

72
 Backward people may not always know what is
good for them. Therefore, in the past, revolutions
were carried through by progressive minorities. The
civilized man, owing to higher education and more
developed intelligence, is not only more conscious of 1

his interest, but is able to take an enlightened view

about it. As soon as a revolution becomes necessary,
in modern times, the necessity is felt by more and more
people, until the majority joins the army of progress.
The process is accelerated under the pressure of un-
foreseen circumstances. We are experiencing such a
juncture of history.
Just as many avowed enemies of Communism are
today helping mankind to advance towards that goal,
just so more men are today moving in the direction
indicated by Marxism than can be imagined by the
casual observer. Marxism has already become the
philosophy of the progressive mankind. The world can
be reconstructed as a home of freedom and culture only
along the lines indicated by Marxism. Therefore,
Communism has come to its own. It has become the
i

future of mankind, its heritage.

In this situation, an exclusive organization of the
Communists is no longer necessary, and being
unnecessary, it has ceased to exist.

73
.
 BOOKS BY M. N. ROY
Rs. as. ps.
Man and Nature ... 3 00
Materialism ... 3 00
Science and Superstition 2 00
Fragments of Prisoners Diary
Vol I. Memoirs of a Cat ... 1 80
Vol II. Ideal of Indian Womanhood 80
Vol III. Letters from Jail 2 80
Heresies of the Twentieth Century 80
80
From Savagery to Civilisation
Philosophy of Fascism ... 2 40
...

Russian Revolution 1 40
Historical Role of Islam ...
80
Our Problems 2 00
My exeriences in China ... 0 80
Our Differences 2 00
The Alternative 0 80
Gandhism, Nationalism and Socialism
Nationalism an Antiquated Cult ...
00
00
Freedom or Fascism ... 80
War and Revolution ...

Library of a Revolutionary 0 80
00

Nationalism, Democracy and Freedom 2 00

Scientific Politics 2 80
Science, Philosophy and Politics 0 40
On Communal Questions 0 30
Satyagraha 40
Peoples' Party
0 80
Relation of Classes ...
0
80
0
World Crisis 0 40
Whither Europe 0 80
Mass Mobilisation 0 40
Origin of Radicalism 0 80
0000

India and War 3 0

Problems of the Indian Revolution 0 6
0 5
Twentieth Century Jacobinism
Available from :-
RENAISSANCE BOOK DEPOT
8, Round Building. BOMBAY 2