/
Serijske publikacije
/
Zgodovinski časopis
Komunistična in socialnodemokratska internacionala v letih 1919–1920 ter kontradiktornost njunih pogledov na politični sistem socializma
Avtor(ji):Avgust Lešnik
Soavtor(ji):Peter Štih (odg. ur.), Dušan Mlacović (ur.), Bojan Balkovec (teh. ur.), ives Sulič Dular (prev.), Niko Hudelja (prev.)
Leto:2011
Založnik(i):Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, Ljubljana
Jezik(i):slovenščina
Vrst(e) gradiva:besedilo
Datoteke (1)
Ime:ZC_2011_3-4.pdf
Velikost:3.88MB
Format:application/pdf
Stalna povezava:https://hdl.handle.net/11686/file18353
Opis
cijskim
pripravam za ustanovitev komunistične
(Moskovske) in obnovitev socialnodemokratske
(Bernske) internacionale, s poudarkom na
njunih nasprotujočih si pogledih na temeljne
probleme socializma tedanjega časa. Medtem
ko je komunistični tabor – prepričan v bližnjo
(evropsko) proletarsko revolucijo, ki bo razbila
vse družbene in politične strukture zatiranja
– okvalificiral meščansko demokracijo kot
diktaturo buržoazije in videl v uvedbi sistema
sovjetov tisti temelj proletarske demokracije,
ki bo presegal meščanski parlamentarizem,
je desni socialnodemokratski tabor obsodil
vsakršno obliko diktature in s tem seveda tudi
boljševiški sistem. In prav na nasprotujočih
si stališčih do boljševiške Rusije je spodletel
poskus obnovitve ‘stare’ II . internacionale, ki naj
bi ponovno združila razcepljeni proletariat.
Metapodatki (11)
- identifikatorhttps://hdl.handle.net/11686/35029
- naslov
- Komunistična in socialnodemokratska internacionala v letih 1919–1920 ter kontradiktornost njunih pogledov na politični sistem socializma
- Communist and Social Democratic Internationals during the 1919–1920 Period and Their Opposite Views of the Socialist Political System
- ustvarjalec
- Avgust Lešnik
- soavtor
- Peter Štih (odg. ur.)
- Dušan Mlacović (ur.)
- Bojan Balkovec (teh. ur.)
- ives Sulič Dular (prev.)
- Niko Hudelja (prev.)
- predmet
- Kominterna
- Bernska internacionala
- socialna demokracija
- komunistično gibanje
- socializem
- Comintern
- Bern International
- social democracy
- communist movement
- socialism
- opis
- cijskim pripravam za ustanovitev komunistične (Moskovske) in obnovitev socialnodemokratske (Bernske) internacionale, s poudarkom na njunih nasprotujočih si pogledih na temeljne probleme socializma tedanjega časa. Medtem ko je komunistični tabor – prepričan v bližnjo (evropsko) proletarsko revolucijo, ki bo razbila vse družbene in politične strukture zatiranja – okvalificiral meščansko demokracijo kot diktaturo buržoazije in videl v uvedbi sistema sovjetov tisti temelj proletarske demokracije, ki bo presegal meščanski parlamentarizem, je desni socialnodemokratski tabor obsodil vsakršno obliko diktature in s tem seveda tudi boljševiški sistem. In prav na nasprotujočih si stališčih do boljševiške Rusije je spodletel poskus obnovitve ‘stare’ II . internacionale, ki naj bi ponovno združila razcepljeni proletariat.
- Focusing on ideological, political, and organizational preparations for the founding congress of the Third International (the Comintern) in Moscow, and on the revival of the Social Democratic International in Bern, Switzerland, the article explores their opposing views on the most burning issues pertaining to socialism. Certain of the imminent (European) revolution of the proletariat that would dispense with all social and political bodies of oppression, the Communist wing pronounced bourgeois democracy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. According to the Communist doctrine, the introduction of the system of soviets represented the basis for proletarian democracy that was to surpass bourgeois parliamentarism. In contrast, the rightwing Social Democratic faction denounced any form of dictatorship, which certainly included the Bolshevik system. These opposing positions on Bolshevik Russia were the very reason why the attempt at restoring the “old” Second International, whose aim was to reunite the divided proletariat, failed completely.
- After the final rift in international socialism immediately after the First World War the revolutionary left-wing faction rejected the name social democracy in favor of the term communism, which became the general term for its doctrine, policy, and movement. The term social democrats, which denoted the formerly unified social democratic movement, had been retained by the remaining right-wing and centrist groups and orientations. While the newlyformed communist parties of the socialist left wing adopted the revolutionary experience of the All-Union Communist Party (the Bolsheviks), the social right-wing and centrist parties, which favored parliamentary democracy, were grouped in the social democratic wing of international socialism. This process of ideological differentiation and dissentience, which finalized the increasing political polarization and organizational division in 1919, gave birth to two politically distinctive groups, the communists and the social democrats. This took place on national as well as on international levels, and ultimately led to the founding of the Third International (the Communist International – CI , also named the Comintern) in the March of 1919 and to the revival of the Social Democratic International in Bern, Switzerland. The primary aim of the Comintern was to unite all “healthy” elements of the international workers’ movement into revolutionary Marxist units. With the ultimate goal to assume the role of revolutionary leaders (revolutionary headquarters) in each country, these units would represent common ground for mutual supplementation, strengthening, and support of the Russian and of the international revolution. This is the context that provides an explanation of the Comintern‘s position on Social Democrats. Due to the fact that the Comintern was born from the rift in international socialism it is quite understandable that its official documents reflect a distinctively negative attitude to both the Social Democratic Party and the renewed Second International. It was already during its first congress in 1919 that the Comintern adopted the Resolution on the Attitude towards the “Socialistic” Currents and the Bern Conference, therefore completely distancing itself from all socialist orientations that were not overly enthusiastic with the breach in the international socialist movement. The reason for this harsh position was firstly the belief in the imminent (European) revolution of the proletariat that would dispense with all social and political bodies of oppression, and secondly the claim that the government of the proletariat had to be based on mass organizations of the soviet type. Pronouncing bourgeois democracy the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, the Comintern perceived the system of the soviets as the basis of proletarian democracy that was to surpass bourgeois parliamentarism. During the time the Bolsheviks and the European left strived to establish the Third International the reformist Social Democrats endeavored to revive the Second International. Burdened with the policy of the so-called “national defense” in the First World War and simultaneously greatly weakened by the secession of left and centrist parties from their ranks, they held a conference in Berne in February 1919. In view of profound theoretical and tactical differences regarding the most fundamental issues of that period, specifically the war, peace, revolution, and socialism, the ideological rift within the international socialist movement was far too severe to still be able to reach “reconciliation” and renewed consolidation of the many diverse socialist factions into an umbrella organization such as the Second International in the period prior to the First World War. The Bern Conference largely focused on two issues: the question of “democracy and dictatorship” in socialism and the preparation of the official position on the Bolshevik revolution. Pronouncing the “methods of dictatorship” unacceptable for socialism, the right wing maintained the position that the necessary prerequisite for the implementation and preservation of the socialist society was “democracy”. Contrary to this, the centrist parties refused to condemn the Bolshevist point of view, declaring that this would in fact merely “hinder future unification of the proletariat of all countries.” The right majority refused to accept this position of the centrist minority, appealing to the principles of parliamentary democracy that renounces any form of dictatorship, including the Bolshevik doctrine. These opposing positions on Bolshevik Russia were the fundamental reason why the attempt at a revival of the Second, the so-called “old”, International failed. In 1920, the Comintern was at the pinnacle of its revolutionary ascent, and consequently its Second Congress of the same year represented the culmination of postwar revolutionary enthusiasm and profound historic hope. According to the prevalent conviction of the protagonists of the communist movement, objective historic circumstances for the development of revolution were mature enough; they stated that “the only thing that was missing was capable and autonomous communist parties that would oversee and accelerate the revolutionary process.” The principal objective of the Third International, as had been stated during the Second Congress, was therefore the establishment of revolutionary parties in every country and the proffering of ideological help for their preparation for crucial battles. It is in this vein that the need should be understood to create “conditions for the acceptance into the Third International.” These conditions were meant to deter any fierce members of socialist parties from their opportunistic leadership. “The Dictate of Moscow,” which was the common term for these “conditions” used by the workers’ movement in Western Europe, was prompted by the fact that the situation for the realization of these conditions was largely not mature enough in most of the working-class parties to which these “conditions” applied. The provoked differentiation, whose major aim was final homogenization of the international workers’ movement under the leadership of Moscow, was thus only partly successful. Clearly created to correspond to the politics of the day, these “conditions” started to increasingly lose their original character in the politics of the Third International after 1921. Taking place in 1920, the Geneva Congress of the Second International discussed in length the platform differences between the Bolsheviks and Social Democrats; this burning question, and its related answer, in due time not only created a divide between the Second and the Third Internationals but later also represented a source of continuous dispute between the two sides. The basis for the discussion was provided by the Resolution on the Political System of Socialism. In reference to the question of methods and forms of struggle of the working class to gain political control the Resolution, contrary to Bolshevik ideology, categorically rejected the use of force and terror, stating: “The main objective of the working-class government is to ensure democracy within socialism. In this context, democracy refers to parliamentary democracy for it is the parliament that represents the regime of the people.” The attempt of right-wing socialist parties for unification of the international socialist movement on the basis of the Bern International failed; they had compromised themselves far too strongly with national chauvinism and with attacks on the “Russian October.” In addition, the “21 conditions” of the increasingly influential Communist International demanded unconditional division, and not unification, of the movement. Contrary to this demand, the centrists initiated a proposal for unification, optimistically founding their intermediary role on their wartime policy of social pacifism. During meetings of socialist parties in the postwar period, the centrists wisely refrained from rashly denouncing the Bolshevist revolution. Substantiating their claim for their own International (“the Second and a Half International”) on the fact that neither the present Second nor the Third Internationals were capable of resolving the tasks awaiting the entire international working-class movement, the centrists believed that the Second International was in fact already defunct. They claimed that the parties united within the Second International represented solely the reformist faction of the international working-class movement while the Third International was comprised solely of communist parties that favored the division rather than the unification of the entire proletariat movement.
- založnik
- Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije
- datum
- 2011
- tip
- besedilo
- jezik
- Slovenščina
- jeDelOd