With the collapse of the Second International and the prospect of world revolution, the necessity of a Third International was seen as extremely important to the survival of the fledgling Soviet Republic and the success of the forthcoming world revolution. Called in the midst of the civil war that was raging the various parts of Russia, and owing to its hasty assembly, only five of the forty-four delegates to the First Congress came from abroad representing their own organizations or factions thereof. A lack of clarity in the aims and organization of this party-building endeavor reigned. The Second and Third Congresses attempted to rectify these and other problems to varying degrees of success. As the first attempt to build Communist parties outside Russia, this period of Comintern history provides us with many lessons and experiences that we can take advantage of in our party-building movement.
1. What was the supposed conjunctural context to which the authors of these documents responded, and how did this affect the tactics and general tenor of the Third International at the time of its founding?
2. How do the 21 points on the conditions of admission constitute a break with the Second International? How was this break sought and how well did it fare?
3. A real break with the Second International could not be “carried out on the basis of resolutions but only on the basis of political experience”, according to Paul Levi of the German party. Lenin’s break was based on an involved study of the various practices of his party (economic, political, ideological and theoretical), grasped and transformed by theoretical practice and returned as strategy and tactics constituting a real break. Not only that, this break was solidified and struggled over for fifteen years before the Bolshevik Revolution. Given the necessary theoretical labor and political experience to initiate a real break and the characteristic statement of the French trade unionist Gaston Monmousseau that “we do not know exactly what Leninism is, but we love and follow Lenin because he is the leader of the Socialist Revolution and we are revolutionaries”, plus our previous knowledge of the theoretical acumen of the Second International, could the character of this break be as profound as Lenin’s? How has this success or failure affected the historical continuity of the dogmatism and revisionism we see today?
4. The Second Point of “The Organization and Construction of Communist Parties” on page 108 states that “there can be no absolutely infallible and unalterable form of organization for Communist Parties.” It is then added that “this differentiation has definite limits.” Which of these statements, in practice, dominates throughout the text? What seems to set these limits according to Lenin in his critique of the document at the Fourth Congress? How has this example affected the conception of democratic centralism that many in our present Marxist-Leninist movement hold?
5. In Fundamental Tasks on pages 169-170 it is stated that “nuclei” of the party should be closely connected with each other “interchanging their experiences.” How does this conception of democratic centralism compare to the practices of today’s Communist parties which disallow communication between different cells? How does this deviation harm democratic centralism and what can we learn from it?
“Conditions of Admission into the Communist International”, In International Communism in the Era of Lenin, Helmut Gruber, editor, pp. 287-292.
V.I. Lenin. “Theses and Report of Bourgeois Democracy and Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, Collected Works, Vol. 28. pp; 457-474.
“Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International”, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 184-201.
“Five Years of the Russian Revolution”, Collected Works, Vol. 33, pp. 418-433.
“The Organizational Construction of the Communist Parties and the Methods and Scope of Their Activities”, Theses and Resolutions Adopted at the Third World Congress of the Communist International, pp.75-101.