MIA > Archive > Nicolai Bukharin
From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 45, 22 June 1923, pp. 440–441.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
June 13, 1923
Comrade Hoeglund expressed disappointment with Comrade Zinoviev’s report. In my opinion Comrade Zinoviev had to deal with new political phenomena and the development of alarming symptoms within our brother parties, and this he did. This way of dealing with things differentiates us from the Second International. Hoeglund accuses the Executive of wanting to destroy the Norwegian Party after having done the greatest harm to the Italian Party, but he was not able to produce any proof for his assertion. I will now deal with Hoeglund’s rather comical argument concerning the religious question. Comrade Zinoviev even yesterday desired to know the reason for this very sudden appearance of the religious question. Objectively, there can only be one explanation at this moment. Throughout Europe, Soviet Russia is being attacked owing to the religious persecution which it is alleged is taking place in Russia, borne Norwegian comrades are using this opportunity to assure the world that only the Russian Communists are such bad fellows, while they themselves are perfectly loyal and not at all anti-religious. This may not be so subjectively, but objectively it is so. These comrades fear the attacks of the bourgeois press. A similar thing happened in connection with centralism. Just at the moment when the bourgeois press is raising a clamour about the Moscow “Ukase” and the dependence of the Norwegian comrades on the Moscow Dictatorship, our Norwegian Comrades began to busy themselves with the question of centralism. This means that the Scandinavian Communists want to appear more humane, the real Communists. Anyhow, this is the objective meaning of their action although they may not intend it to be so.
As to the basis of Hoeglund’s arguments, there is not an atom of Marxism in it The assertion that the Communist Party does not say that religion is not counter revolutionary, is not correct. At present every religion in Europe is counter-revolutionary. In the Eastern countries religion can play a certain revolutionary role, as shown by the struggle of the religiously fanatical masses of Asia against British imperialism. The emancipation of the proletariat from the yoke of capitalism. means also the emancipation of the working class from bourgeois ideology, and religion is part of it.
Comrade Hoeglund wrote: “It is quite a different matter when the Communist Party carries on a relentless struggle against the conversion of religion into a class political institution such as the Established Church.” Marxism asserts however, that every religion represents a class ideology and is therefore a class Instrument.
In our Party we can tolerate religious people, for religion has taken deep root in the soul of modern humanity. It is right that we should be patient with these people in order to bring about their emancipation from old religious beliefs, but this does not mean that we as a Party have nothing to do with religion. Hoeglund told me that even the A.B.C. of Communism says that we must be cautious in our struggle against religion. That is only natural. In the course of our anti-religious campaign we must apply different methods to the peasants to those we apply to the workers, as we need more patience with the former. Comrade Falk asserted that to begin a campaign against religion now was extremely stupid, lie is evidently oblivious of the fact that it is not we who nave undertaken a campaign against religion, but rather that comrade Hoeglund is carrying on a campaign on behalf of religion.
And now a few words on Comrade FaIk’s speech. He asserted that Zinoviev in his speech declared that the Norwegian Communist Party is antagonistic to the Communist International. In fact, Zinoviev said just the opposite. Comrade Falk also said that in connection with various questions, we never discussed matters direct with the Norwegian Party, but always approached individuals. This also is contrary to facts. Thousands of times we asked the Norwegian Central Committee to send representatives to Moscow, to discuss these questions with them. This was not always done. As to the Y.C.L., I personally am of the opinion that, in questions concerning relations with the International, national discipline is not obligatory for individual members of any Party or for any section of that Party if this discipline is opposed to the International. In times of conflict between the International and the local sections every member of a Young Communist League or of any Party organisation is entitled to be for the International and against the Central Organisations of his country. If the Scandinavian comrades really mean to work shoulder to shoulder with the Communist International, we will find ways and means to remove all the difficulties.
Last updated on 2 September 2022