With the outbreak of the war in 1914 the Second International collapsed. It collapsed not merely in the formal sense that no contact was possible between the different parties in the belligerent countries. But by collaboration with the national bourgeoisie it ceased to stand for the international solidarity of the working class, and ceased to be an instrument of emancipation of the working class. Lenin was quick to realise this, and within a month of the outbreak of war he wrote on the necessity of building a new international.
In 1915 Lenin at the head of the Bolshevik delegation attended a conference of anti-war Socialists at Zimmerwald.. Here Lenin put forward the uncompromising line that a correct proletarian policy for obtaining peace, was to con-vert the imperialist war into Civil War by revolution. This policy was too extreme for the majority of delegates. It was the same at another anti-war conference held at Kienthal the following year. But Lenin was building around him a group of uncompromising revolutionary internationalists who were to form the foundation of the new revolutionary international.
THE FOUNDING OF THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL
The victorious proletarian revolution took place in Russia in November 1917. In March 1918 the Soviet Government was forced to conclude peace with Germany at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on very unfavourable terms. After the defeat of Germany by the Allies came the period of interventionist war against the U.S.S.R. The young workers’ state was attacked on all sides by counter-revo-lutionary armies financed and armed by the Allies. In late 1918 and early 1919 the Soviet armies suffered defeat after defeat. It was in the midst of this crisis that Lenin called for the formation of the new International.
The Third International was formed at a Conference held in Moscow, in March 1919. It was not a large confer-ence. It was very difficult to reach Russia at that time, and very few were able to get through. The only dele-gates who arrived from abroad were from Germany, America, Austria, Norway, Sweden and a few other small countries. The other foreign parties were represented by persons already in Russia. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the leaders of the Spartacists in Germany, who represented the revolutionary workers who had broken from the Second International, had been murdered by the soldiers of the German Social-Democratic Noske, or they would have been present.
The first Congress took a very definite stand against the reactionary effort to rebuild the Second International in its pre-war form, and stood for the organisation of the international proletarian vanguard in a homogenous revo-lutionary International. The main features of the Congress pitilessly exposed the treacherous pacifism of the American President Wilson and the illusion of a capitalist League of Nations which was supported by the Second International. At this congress Lenin’s theses on “Democracy and Dictatorship” were adopted, which showed on the basis of the experience of the Russian revolution the necessity for the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus and the establishment of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat on the basis of Soviets.
Immediately following the war there occurred a powerful growth of the mass movement in practically all countries of the world. The masses began to see through the treacherous role played by the reformist leaders. Under pressure of the masses some of those reformist leaders (of the German Independent Socialist -Party, the Italian Socialist Party, the French Socialist Party, the British I.L.P. etc.) sought affiliation to the Communist Interna-tional without changing their reformist and pacifist ideas. This danger of the introduction of opportunist tendencies into the ranks of the Comintern was counteracted at the Second Congress (1920) which adopted the 21 points con-ditioning membership of the Comintern. A complete break with all pacifist ideas and illusions (such as disar-mament, League of Nations, International arbitration, etc.) was demanded; and in place of a loose organisation of nationally independent parties (as in the Second International), it was decided to build the Comintern as a world party on the foundation of a common theory and practice, and with the aim of realising a common international leadership on the basis of the principles of democratic centralism.
Those politicians who had been hindered by the decisions of the Second Congress from joining the Comintern there-upon organized a 2_ International, standing midway between the second and third Internationals. But there was no basis for such an organisation. The 2_ Interna-tional was crushed in the struggle between the second and third Internationals. Its revolutionary elements turned to the third International. Its bureaucratic tops re-united in 1923 with the second International.
THE THIRD AND FOURTH CONGRESSES
In the German revolution of 1918, the Hungarian revolution of 1919, in the movement of the Italian workers in 1920, the absence of a revolutionary party with a far-sighted and bold leadership proved fatal to success.
“The post-war revolutionary movement of the masses was strong enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie. But there was no one to bring this to a consummation. The social-democracy, which held the leadership of the tradi-tional organizations of the working class, exerted all its efforts to save the bourgeois regime. When we looked forward at that time to an immediate seizure of power by the proletariat, we reckoned that a revolutionary party would mature rapidly in the fire of a civil war. But the two terms did not coincide. The revolutionary wave of the post-war period ebbed before the communist parties grew up and reached maturity in the struggle with the social-democracy so as to assume the leadership of the insurrection.” (Trotsky—Third International After Lenin , Page 87.)
The vital importance, in the post-war period, of correct leadership for success is well illustrated in the following passage by Trotsky. “In a period of growing capitalism even the best party leadership could do no more than only accelerate the formation of a workers’ party. Inversely, mistakes of the leadership could retard this process. The objective pre-requisites of a proletarian revolution matured but slowly, and the work of the party retained a prepara-tory character.
Today, on the contrary, every new sharp change in the political situation to the left places the decision in the hands of the revolutionary party. Should it miss the critical situation, the latter veers round to its opposite. Under these circumstances the role of the party leadership acquires exceptional importance. The words of Lenin to the effect that two or three days can decide the fate of the international revolution would have been almost incom-prehensible in the epoch of the Second International. In our Epoch on the contrary, these words have only too often been confirmed and, with the exception of October, always from the negative side.” (Ibid . page 83.)
In these circumstances, the responsibility of the Comintern was tremendous. Correct leadership by the Comintern was essential if the Communist Parties of the various countries were to lead the workers to victory. Till 1923, the Third International performed this task creditably.
In March 1921, despite the fact that the revolutionary wave was ebbing in Germany the young German Com-munist Party decided to overthrow the bourgeois regime at one blow. The guiding thought of the German Central Committee was to save the Soviet Republic. Needless to say, the effort ended in defeat. The determination of the leadership and the dissatisfaction of the masses does not suffice for victory. The masses must have confidence in the leadership of the party to follow it. Other Communist parties too had been showing signs of “ultra-leftism.” In fact in 1921 Lenin had written his “Left Wing Com-munism, An Infantile Disorder” as a corrective to these tendencies.
The third Congress of the Comintern held in 1921 made every effort to counteract the infantile disorder of ultra-leftism of its sections. It pointed out that the existing Communist Parties, politically as well as organisationally, were not ripe enough for the conquest of power. It advanced the slogan “To the masses,” that is, To the con-quest of Power, through a previous conquest of the masses. Lenin had to struggle hard against the ultra-leftists who were led by Bukharin, in order to get his policy accepted. The decisions of the third Congress and of the fourth Con-gress which confirmed and amplified these decisions in 1922, are invaluable to this day. They laid down the policy of united front with the social democratic parties on the basis of transitional demands, preserving the independence, of the proletarian party, by which the working class could be taken forward to the conquest of power.
But the German events of 1923 showed that the Leninist policy had not been grasped, not only by the Communist Party of Germany but also by the leaders of the Comintern itself.