MIA > Archive > Nicolai Bukharin
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 23 No. 49, 12 July 1923, p. 494.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
June 18, 1923
Comrade Bucharin in closing the debate said: This item of the agenda was to be in the nature of a discussion with the Scandinavian comrades. That it was converted into an attack on the Scandinavian comrades, is not our fault. Comrade Falk said that he would not deal with the theoretical side of this. question. This was only natural, for the comrade had no arguments to use against us. At first the Scandinavian comrades took up the offensive. When they noticed that almost the entire International was against them, they went over to the defensive. Comrade Hoeglund said: we have not done anything wrong, we merely asked that a little more attention should be paid to Scandinavian questions. On this point, we are with Comrade Hoeglund. but we mus task the Scandinavian comrades to pay a little more attention to the entire International. In the course of this discussion,the representatives of almost all the Parties testified to the fact that the Executive did always the right thing every time it intervened in national questions. Why were our Scandinavian comrades silent on this matter? Even if it could be said that we had made mistakes in connection with the Scandinavian questions, one should take everything into account and draw the balance. The discussion which has taken place here has shown that the Executive of the Communist International was a skilful leader of the movement of the world proletariat, and that is the main thing. Why should our leadership, which was acknowledged to have been good in all the countries, have been bad in Scandinavia? I hardly think that the fault lies with the Executive, but that we must look for it on the other side. Comrade Falk pointed out in his last speech that the Norwegian Party had made reservations at the time of entering the International, I think that these reservations are the cause of the present situation and of the isolation of the Norwegian Party. Comrade Hoeglund is much too fond of manoeuvring, but I cannot say that his manoeuvring is always skilful. Comrade Ström said that he acknowledges the centralist standpoint. Hoeglund, on the other hand, defended the standpoint of the Norwegian comrades, which is in direct opposition to the centralist standpoint. I am reproached with drawing caricatures. But every caricature is the embodiment of the original. I showed up certain opportunist tendencies. Did we hear arguments against it? The comrades talked about the “split” spectre,but who wants the split? We were reproached with wanting to undermine the authority of this or that comrade. The contrary is the case. By their attitude, the comrades are themselves undermining their authority. The comrades have accused me of quoting some paragraphs from an article by Hoeglund without explaining the specific situation at the time when this article was written. A French proverb says:“Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner”. However, this does not apply to us. Comrade Hoeglund also said that it is foolish to carry out the arming of the working class in Norway and Sweden. In arguing with Tranmael. I did not reproach him with not having brought forward this slogan. I merely argued against Tranmael’s anti-militarist ideology. Hoeglund refuses to understand this. Ström said that I must be fully aware that conditions in Sweden are not idyllic,having experienced what prisons in Sweden are. But I maintain, that in comparison With what is going on in Central Europe, in the Ruhr, in Yugo-Slavia, in Italy, in Hungary, and just now in Bulgaria, Scandinavian conditions are idyllic. Comrade Ström asserted that the Swedish Party is in favour of centralism. I daresay they are, but on the Norwegian model, with such strong reservations, that at a critical moment, we mig find them supporting another tendency. Comrade Falk in his first speech argued with me that the question now is, whether the various peculiarities of the Norwegian Party should be overcome or should be preserved. In his second speech, however, he said that on this question he heard from us nothing but jeers. Which of the two things is right? The trouble lies in the Norwegian Party’s having joined the International with reservations. This is exactly the bad point, which must be overcome. Comrade Falk asserted, that today's discussion will re-open the fractional struggle in the Norwegian Party. Surely, no one in his senses can protest against the discussion of such questions here in the Executive, for are we not to explain to the Executive and to all other brother Parties the standpoint of the Norwegian and Swedish comrades? Much was said hereabout the blind obedience of the Russian comrades. I should advise bur Scandinavian comrades to study our Party a little more carefully. I do not know whether our Norwegian comrades are acquainted with our factory nuclei. In some factories these nuclei consist of only five or six persons, but even these small units concern themselves with all political questions, and in no other Party is Party life so active as in ours. Discipline with us is not blind obedience, but unity in action.
We cannot say that we never make mistakes, and we do not object to being criticised. On the contrary, wherever we make mistakes, we are anxious to make them good with your assistance. We may say that it is our wish to bring about, as speedily as possible, a reconciliation between the Executive and the Norwegian Party. Therefore, we shall meet these comrades mote than half way in the Commission. But we deem it our duty to criticise every serious symptom of deviation from the standpoint of the Communist International. It is our duty to do our utmost in the Commission,in order that we may, after this Session of the Enlarged Executive, close our ranks in the struggle against the bourgeoisie.
Last updated on 2 September 2021