A major intervention from August Thalheimer as he provides the supplementary report to Bukharin’s 5th Comintern Congress report on the International’s program.

‘Thalheimer Adds to World Program Report’ by August Thalhiemer from The Daily Worker. Vol. 2 Nos. 130 & 131. August 19 & 20, 1924.

Editor’s Note: In this issue we begin the publication of the supplementary report of August Thalheimer, the German Communist, on the World Communist Program before the Fifth Congress of the Communist International. Thalheimer made this report in co-operation with Nicholas Bukharin, whose address on this question has already been published. Thalheimer reported as follows:

COMRADES: As Comrade Bukharin has already explained, my task will not be to present another entirely separate report, but to supplement his report mainly by dealing with the discussions which have already taken place. It has become evident that agreement will be possible on all essential points. I will briefly recall the controversial points which played a part at our last congress, and the position they have now reached. The first question which was discussed was the question of accumulation, that is to say, Rosa Luxemburg’s theory of accumulation. We have agreed not to formulate this for the program, but to formulate a program which will reach above and beyond these theoretical differences. We have not done this from any personal motives, but because a theoretical discussion must be fully worked out before one can reach conclusions, and make the whole question clear. We were also influenced by the fact that both of us, Bukharin and I, were in disagreement with Kautsky’s explanation of imperialism. There would have been no advantage therefore in discussing all these theoretical differences.

PARTIAL DEMANDS

The second question, and perhaps the most important controversial question discussed by the last congress during its debate on the programs, was the question of whether transitional and partial demands should be included in the general program of the Communist International or not. This question was decided by the Fourth Congress, which resolved that the definition of the nature of and necessity for transitional and partial demands should be placed in the general program, while the particular application of these demands in relation to concrete questions, should be left to the national program. It is well known that Comrade Lenin was in complete agreement with these decisions, and as their theoretical correctness has already been established, we do not see any reason to alter them.

Lenin on Partial Demands.

The necessary principles had already been laid down in the program debate which took place in 1922, and which were supplemented by Comrade Lenin in relation to transitional and partial demands. The principle laid down was that transitional and partial demands cannot be excluded so long as the bourgeois has not been conquered, and the dictatorship of the proletariat has not been entered upon and firmly established.

Now no facts of this kind have occurred since the last congress. The bourgeoisie is not yet conquered, and therefore we can see no reason for leaving out these transitional and partial demands for our program.

I shall chiefly deal here with the debates which have so far taken place in the program commission, not with particular details, but with what is of value in throwing light on the debates, and in simplifying future discussion. I shall take the points in the order in which they were discussed in the commission.

The first question which was discussed, and which Bukharin dealt with very fully, was the question of the different forms of the transition to Socialism, especially the concrete questions of the N. E.P. and of war Communism, in so far as both these questions have a general application. With regard to the question whether N.E.P. could have any application to other countries beside Russia as a transition to Socialism, there was no differences of opinion in the commission, everyone was in full agreement with the views developed by Bukharin. On the other hand, there was considerable discussion of the question of war Communism and the part which it might have to play in other countries–whether it would have any part to play, and if so, how large a part. In short, the question we discussed was: Is War Communism a necessary preliminary stage to N.E.P. or not?

The N.E.P.

The second question which was dealt with, was that regarding the formula with which the fact that N.E.P. is of general application should be expressed in the program. The conclusion reached was that one cannot of course, insert N.E.P. into the program in a concrete form; the form “N.E.P.” itself cannot be mentioned, but the important point is to get its essential meaning into the program. What are the essential characteristics of N.E.P.? They are: Calculation according to capitalistic methods; retention of the functions of money; retention of the form of trusts; continuance of banks and exchanges. In short, the combination of the organizational forms of capitalism with the fundamental transformation of their social significance. may be of some interest to note here these general forms of the transition to Socialism, as we regard N.E.P., are already sketched out by Marx. I refer here to the third volume of “Capital,” and to Marx’s notes on the Gothe program, where he says that in the transition to Socialism we would at first have to adapt ourselves to the economic forms left behind by capitalism, and that we shall only be able to proceed to full Communism at a further stage of development, when we have eliminated those forms also.

WAR COMMUNISM

Now as to the question of war Communism, which I must defend a little against Comrade Bukharin. What is the true nature of war Communism? It can be defined as a rational centralized method of distribution, adapted to the necessities of war. The essential pre-requisite for it, is that the resources which make economic organization possible, should be present. It is necessary to lay particular stress on this fact of the existence of resources. The policy of military Communism could never have been carried out in Russia without the resources which czarism had left behind it.

What is the distinguishing mark of war Communism from the economic point of view? Abolition of money, highly centralized control, no private trading, the crippling of the small trader, and the requisitioning of agricultural produce. In order to decide whether war Communism should form a feature of our program, it is necessary to remember that war Communism was not evolved from any theoretical program drawn up beforehand by the Russian Communist Party, but simply developed out of the necessities of revolutionary strategy. What were these necessities? They were mainly two: The First, to drive out the bourgeoisie from all those positions the economic strength of which could be utilized in the political struggle. All the strongholds of economic power which were destroyed, were not destroyed simply from the economic point of view, but from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, the end being the complete defeat of the bourgeoisie. And the necessity for this action endures so long as the power of the bourgeoisie is not really broken. It remains until the bourgeoisie has been subjugated, and placed under the control of the working class, the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is the first aspect.

Mass Supply Army.

The second essential function of war Communism, is to supply the army and the urban industrial population with food. This function must of course be closely related to the fact that requisitions of agricultural produce are not made until the peasants have had the land handed over to them by the industrial workers, so that the requisitions taken from the peasants could be regarded as a receipt given by them to the working class in exchange for the land they have received.

If we are attempting to reach a general formula for the relation of N.E.P. to war Communism, we must realize quite clearly that N.E.P. would never have been possible in Russia unless it had succeeded a preliminary stage of war Communism.

It would not have been possible because the will of the bourgeoisie, and their resistance, had first to be broken, and very thoroughly broken, before they were ready to submit to the leadership of the working class. Therefore we may assert that a longer or shorter period of war Communism must precede the N.E.P. in future revolutions. If it be further asked how war Communism and N.E.P. will be modified to suit different conditions, I think we may consider the following aspects of this question:

The decision as to how far war Communism can, or must proceed, will depend upon the particular conditions in a given country, and also on the international conditions in which the proletariat of a particular country seizes power, that is to say, on how much fighting is necessary before the bourgeoisie is subjugated to the leadership of the working class.

National Variations.

Naturally this will and must vary in different countries. It will depend upon the strength of the working class as against the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. It will also largely depend upon the international situation. Obviously a proletarian revolution which takes place in a country where the neighboring countries are already nearly ripe for revolution, and which defeats its adversaries, not in the course of a period of years, but in a much shorter time, and is able to consolidate its power, will have to adapt and alter both the forms and the duration of war Communism.

NEP VARIES

It is equally clear that the forms of the New Economic Policy will also vary in different countries, and that the general plan, the general scheme, the outline of the N.E.P. in different conditions. It is both possible and probable that in countries where the capitalist system is highly developed and is much greater in proportion to the pre-capitalistic, peasant stage of production than it was in Russia, the N.E.P. may be developed much further than it has been here in Russia. The form in which N.E.P. is developed depends very much upon the stage towards which the industries taken over by the proletarian revolution I have developed. It depends upon the degree to which industry has been centralized, its strength in proportion to that of peasant production, its technical organization, its relation to finance, to petty bourgeois capital, etc. All these aspects must be taken into consideration.

Naturally we cannot lay down all the concrete adaptations of this kind in our program. That would be impossible, for nobody can foresee them. We must be content to lay down the essential principles of the New Economic Policy, as the general form of the transition to Socialism, and the essential principles of war Communism, as the adaptation of economic necessity to the requirements of revolutionary strategy; that is to say, war Communism must be regarded from the aspect of the defeat of the bourgeoisie, the conduct of a civil war, and of possible rewards of intervention.

The commission unanimously agreed that the transition to Socialism must be laid down in the program from these points of view.

Divisions in Working Class.

A second question which was discussed was that of the various divisions of the working class. A full report was given to the program commission of all the various groupings of the working class in relation to its political tendencies, groupings, and parties. The main point on which stress was laid here, was naturally that of the part played by the aristocracy of labor in a period of imperialism, its relation to the superior imperialistic power of certain countries, and the relation of the aristocracy of labor to opportunism and the opportunistic tendencies in the working class. But, in considering these points, it was also realized that it was not only important to distinguish these various divisions, but equally important to make it clear that these divisions are of a transitory and merely temporary nature, since the main line of development is at present proceeding in a direction which will obliterate these differences, and level down the various subdivisions of the working class into a common economic position and a common ideological attitude, thus drawing them nearer together. It must not be forgotten, in considering all these groupings, that above and beyond them there exists the fundamental identity of interest of the working class as an economic class. It is this fundamental unity of the working class, founded upon its place in the machinery of production, which must be our starting point when we set out to pass over all the divisions and differentiations of the working class, and to unite them under a single leadership, the leadership of the Communist Party.

***

WE also reported upon the various types of countries. It had been decided similarly by the Fourth Congress that this description of the different countries should be made as an introduction to the national programs, and that it should be made from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, of the conquest of political power. Comrade Varga spoke on this subject, and has also submitted a draft of the descriptions. The aspects considered here were as follows:

First, the aspect of economic development, including the following three questions: 1. Whether a country may be expected to develop further under the capitalistic system or not; 2. Whether a given country has already reached its highest stage of development, or passed it; 3. The problem of the Soviet States where the proletariat has already seized power, and broken down the capitalistic framework.

Secondly, the classification of countries according as to whether they are the exploiters or the exploited in imperialistic politics; whether they are partially or wholly independent of the great imperialistic powers.

Thirdly, the class structure of the various countries, and the relative strength of the various classes in each country, of course, with special reference to the working class. Attitude Toward Second International. During the discussion special stress was laid upon one point which is important for us in defining our own standpoint in distinction to that of the Second International, namely the fact that one must very carefully differentiate the development of a country from the point of view of revolutionary strategy, from its development from the point of view of Socialism. The aspects which determine the transition to Socialism are not the same as those which determine the transition to revolution. In considering the question of the transition to Socialism, the important features are the technical and economic stage of industrial development, the degree of centralization, and the proportionate strength of industrial in relation to that of other non-capitalistic forms of production in the same country.

A typical instance of the way in which these two points of view can be confused, is provided by Kautsky, and showed itself in a particularly blatant way in his treatment of the question of the Russian revolution. For in Russia we can see, with the greatest clearness, the difference between the two aspects.

Russia Far in Advance.

Where revolutionary development was concerned, our experiences have shown that Russia was far in advance of all other countries. But as soon as political power had been conquered, it soon became evident that Russia was backward, where the evolution of Socialism was concerned. These two circumstances are closely related to one another. The comparative backwardness and lack of economic development in Soviet Russia, i.e., the large proportion of peasants to industrial workers, produced the peculiar character of our revolution, namely the union of the proletariat with the peasants. It was this union which made the country ripe for revolution, and it is also this union which is producing the greatest difficulties in the present period of transition to Socialism.

To turn now to the agrarian question. The commission received a detailed report on the agrarian program in its relation to the general program. Lenin’s theses on the agrarian question at the Second Congress, and the theses of the Fourth Congress, were taken as a foundation. The points discussed were the following:

The attitude which should be adopted towards the various bourgeois projects for agrarian reform, such as that of dividing up large estates for the benefit of poor peasants. The question was asked, what should be the attitude of the Communist program to bourgeois plans of this kind?

The Communist Parties cannot afford to take up an attitude of neutrality or of opposition to plans of this kind, least of all when they have already gained a hold on the masses; but neither must they be dragged along at the heel of a movement of this kind, they must take up the only possible attitude, which is to drive such movements further forward, and to put forward demands which will force them on towards revolution. For instance, in relation to the bourgeois schemes for agrarian reform, the demand should without any compensation being paid for it to the owners of the large estates. It is typical of all these bourgeois projects of agrarian reform that the division of land is never suggested except in exchange for compensation. We must hold firmly in our program to the demand that distribution of land should always take place without compensation.

Study Slow and Fast Tempo.

It was further discussed whether this attitude was equally suitable to a slow and a fast revolutionary tempo, whether it was required because a slowing down in the tempo of revolution had been accepted. The commission decided here that this was not the case. The fact that we are obliged to on in these movements is dictated by the revolutionary situation itself. Then the question of small and large scale farms was discussed, with special reference to the views represented by revisionists like David. Superficially it might appear that by supporting the division of land at the present moment, we were approaching, in some respects, the point of view of these revisionists. but that is not the case. We look at things from the point of view of revolutionary strategy. David looks at them from the point of view of reformist politics. We define our own attitude by declaring that we take our whole stand on the necessity for large scale farming. In agriculture as in other forms of production, we aim at the development of large-scale production. This means of course, that we do everything that is possible, politically and economically for this end, but we must lay stress upon it as our fundamental standpoint, because it is the standpoint necessary for the development of Socialism.

Then another point which is of a certain amount of importance among Social Democrats. You are aware that among the Social Democrats the antagonism which exists between the urban worker as purchaser, and the peasant as seller of food, has been made much of in the last years. And the stress laid upon this antagonism was a means towards uniting the urban worker with the bourgeoisie against the smaller peasantry. What have we to say about this? Of course we have to admit that antagonism between the worker and the peasant does exist, where the price of food is concerned. But the difference between the worker as purchaser and the peasant as seller of food is nothing in comparison to that antagonism between the workers and the peasants together on one side and the great capitalists and big landlords together on the other. Thus far we can submit false views of the Social Democrats, to a thorough revision.

Raise Land Nationalization.

The question of land nationalization, and the part it should play in our program was also discussed. With regard to the nationalization of large estates there is nothing to be discussed. The only question that arises is as to how far the principle of nationalization should be extended. Should it be extended to small and medium-sized properties? On this question the commission decided to leave the matter open, and not to mention the nationalization of small and medium-sized properties, but to indicate in the program that profiteering and speculation in land should be prohibited by law. To elucidate this further, let me point out that with regard to small and medium-sized properties, one can exercise the same control by different legal methods. One can extend the principle of nationalization by law to the small and medium-sized properties, and declare that the peasant is not the owner of his land, but is permitted to enjoy only the use of it, thus limiting his powers of selling it or giving it away. Or one can say just the opposite, as in the German agrarian program, i.e. that the possessions of these poor and middle peasantry, will not be touched, and the one can add all sorts of legal restriction preventing buying, selling, giving away, or inheriting land. We have indicated the latter method as the most suitable one in general, because in the west of Europe the conception which the small and middle peasantry have of property is far more deeply rooted than was the case in Russia.

Then, comrades, there is still the national question. The features of the national question were also explained by Lenin and cleared up in the theses of our international congresses. I will not mention the points thus settled; I will mention only the points which were discussed in the Program Commission. There were two essential points. First, how far shall the Communist Parties of oppressed nationalities make use of the right which our program gives them for national self-determination even to the point of secession; that is, how far or under what circumstances shall they apply this program slogan practically and politically? Well, comrades, the point of view which must serve as our criterion can only be a general point of view–that the national points of view must be entirely subjected, under all circumstances, to the point of view of the international class struggle. All these various questions must be concretely solved from this point of view.

Take Up Self Determination.

The second question was whether the slogan of the right of self-determination was sufficient for the solution of all national questions. It was pointed out that a number of national questions existed in countries, like the United States, where there is an extraordinarily mixed population; which shows that the slogan of the right of self-determination cannot solve all national questions. Then there is the race question. The Program Commission was of the opinion that the slogan of the right of self-determination must be supplemented by another slogan: “Equal rights for all nationalities and races.” The Program Commission also discussed whether or not the program should contain a definition of the conception of a nation.

The Commission came to the conclusion that where it was practically impossible to find a definition for the conception “nation” which would satisfy all requirements, and that for the requirements of our fight it is only necessary to have a political definition, so that we may know where we can intervene and we can not. Of course, everything depends upon whether or not the working class of the country raises the national question. If the national question is a vital one for the working class, if it is vital for the workers and peasant-proletariat, then it is naturally vital for the Communist Party and must not be neglected.

A further question which was discussed in the Program Commission was the question of the new form of the bourgeois governments. Fascism was discussed as a form of government on the one hand, and the Labor government on the other. The various types of Fascist government were discussed, and we came to the conclusion that Fascism had already developed various national types. For instance, Italian Fascism, its forms of development and forms of government, is not identical with German Fascism, its struggle for development and its methods of wielding power. Here national differences exist.

The next matter that was discussed was what the next stage after Fascism would be. Various specifications were made. Must Fascism be eliminated directly by the proletarian dictatorship, or could intermediate stages arise? Comrades, the Commission was of the opinion that we cannot prophesy about this question but must leave it open, because various possibilities exist.

Also Discuss Intellectuals.

Then the question of the intellectuals was discussed. I will not report on this question, since it is a special point on the agenda.

Then on the role of the party, on which subject Comrade Kuusinen spoke. I will mention the following points which arose from this discussion: We all agreed that the conception of the role of the party as represented in the Communist Manifesto is obsolete and the matter must be changed accordingly.

We had quite a thorough discussion on the question of democratic centralism, especially on the question whether or not we should retain this expression. Certain criticisms were made of this expression from the point of view that it does not sufficiently express the synthesis and harmony of these two conceptions–centralism and democracy; and that it ought to be replaced by a better expression. But after a long discussion on the subject, the Commission decided that we must unconditionally retain this expression because it had been clearly and precisely defined, particularly by Comrade Lenin.

The commission also made an analysis of the organizational conceptions which had been put forth by Comrade Rosa Luxemburg. The historical background of these conceptions were discussed, and the Commission came to the conclusion that these conceptions are now obsolete and are no longer advocated by anyone. The fact which caused these conceptions to become obsolete and which compels us to modify them, is that before the Russian Revolution no one, including Rosa Luxemburg, could conceive the organization question from the point of view of the armed uprising. But that was the decisive question for the Russian conception of the organizational question.

Popular vs. Class Party.

In connection with the question of the Communist parties, another question was discussed Popular Party and Class Party. Comrades, this question played a certain role also among the Social Democrats, who represent themselves as the Popular Party, that is, as the party which unites within itself the working class and all the other toilers. We claimed to be a Popular Party, but in an entirely different way. The claims to be the Popular Party in that we, as the revolutionary class party of the proletariat, assumed the leadership of the toiling classes. What the Social Democrats and the parties of the Second International consider to be their role as a Popular Party is something entirely different. It is the subordination of the interests of the proletariat to the interests of the petty bourgeoisie, and the subordination of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie to the interests of the large bourgeoisie–in other words, it is partly a reformist, partly a conservative, and partly a reactionary Popular Party.

Comrades, another point that was discussed was that of the Communist philosophy. Comrade Bukharin has already spoken in detail on this subject. The only question which was discussed in the Program Commission was how far must we go into detail in this question. Shall we give a more or less detailed declaration or shall we restrict ourselves giving a brief and precise statement of the standpoint of the Communist Party on this question. We decided to do the latter and to say at the proper place: “The Communist Party bases itself on the standpoint of dialectic materialism.”

Work for Next Congress.

The last point, the strategy and tactical principles, have not yet been discussed in the Commission. One part of the debate has been anticipated here, and the other part will be discussed in the Commission.

In conclusion I will state: I believe that it is of significance for us that in the Program Commission it was shown that no fundamental differences exist within the Communist International, that no fundamental differences were expressed in the Program Commission. Hence Comrade Bukharin and I are of the opinion that this Congress should accept the draft of the program as outlined here in essentials, and as it will emerge from the Commission, so that it can be sent out as the official draft of the Communist Party to all its sections for further consideration, amendment and discussion. When this is done, then either an Enlarged Plenum or the next Congress should definitely adopt the program in its final form.

The Daily Worker began in 1924 and was published in New York City by the Communist Party US and its predecessor organizations. Among the most long-lasting and important left publications in US history, it had a circulation of 35,000 at its peak. The Daily Worker came from The Ohio Socialist, published by the Left Wing-dominated Socialist Party of Ohio in Cleveland from 1917 to November 1919, when it became became The Toiler, paper of the Communist Labor Party. In December 1921 the above-ground Workers Party of America merged the Toiler with the paper Workers Council to found The Worker, which became The Daily Worker beginning January 13, 1924.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1924/v02a-n130-aug-19-1924-DW-LOC.pdf

PDF of issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/dailyworker/1924/v02a-n131-aug-20-1924-DW-LOC.pdf