Building the Revolutionary Party: German Lessons for Today
Ernest Mandel on Mass Work and United Front Strategy
PART VI: Independent Socialists and Factory Councils Strategy (1919-1920)
From Ernest Mandel's 1976 lecture on the German Revolution
The Independent Socialists' Rearguard Action
Then the Independent Socialists and especially the left wing of the Independent Socialists, [Georg] Däumig, [Georg] Ledebour, Richard Müller, the leaders of the revolutionary shop stewards, engaged in an extremely valuable rearguard action that the leaders of the Communist Party did not understand and even partly sabotaged with little tactical art, which did them terrible harm in 1919 and which pushed the entire historical current [away] from them in 1919, not through the Social Democratic Party at the time.
"The Councils Must Absolutely Be Preserved"
The reasoning that the comrades of the independent left held, the left of the Independent Socialist Party [was]: "The councils must absolutely be preserved. The revolution has suffered a defeat, but it is not yet the [final] defeat. New battles will come. If we preserve the organizational form, [since] this is the form, the only form in which a revolutionary working class can organize itself, no matter what function the councils have momentarily, they will find again the function of an organ of power when they coincide again with a revolutionary crisis.
It is therefore necessary to save the councils, whatever their immediate function, because this will be a vehicle, this will be a valid form of revolutionary organization at the moment of the approach." I believe that they were absolutely right. One must draw conclusions moreover for the future. We must behave in exactly the same manner.
Against Soviet Fetishism
One must not have soviet fetishism, one must understand what is the function of self-organization of the working class—moreover I believe that it is useless to explain to [our] movement, our movement has understood this thoroughly—and one must understand that every form of self-organization of the working class, even a form much more modest than the soviet form, can be an embryonic Soviet.
One must therefore not be maximalist in this matter. One must not say either Soviets or nothing at all, but one must say we try to maintain and to generalize every form of self-organization of the working class at the level of enterprises and at the local level, because if one preserves something on this subject, as soon as the situation changes, the restart of the pure soviet form, this has a [much] easier [beginning] starting from such a council than starting from zero.
The Transformation Strategy
And there thus, the comrades of the Independent Socialist left played an eminently positive role. They thus said well, we no longer have political power, we regret it, we condemn [it], no the Social Democratic traitors, [the] bloody dogs of [Noske] who took away our political power, but let us preserve the maximum of power at the level of enterprises. Let us transform in other terms the workers' councils into workers' control committees, into committees that constitute organs of counter-power, organs of contestation of boss power at the level of enterprises, [even if it means] federating them at the local level, maintaining them at the local [level], that is to say as embryonic organs of power, of counter-power at the local level.
The Communist Party's "Dialogue of the Deaf"
And then there was a dialogue of the deaf, this is bad, I believe, on the part of the Communist Party throughout 1919 against this attempt. The Communist Party, making jokes, saying, "the independents believe they can conquer power factory by factory, in each factory, they believe one can conquer economic power without having political power," and this was largely a debate beside the point.
The Success of the Strategy (1919-1920)
Throughout 1919 and a good part of 1920, the battle was waged with considerable success. The attempts by the coalition government led by the Social Democrats to liquidate the factory councils, the workers' councils failed. They lost the majority in the trade unions. They wanted to oppose the trade unions to the workers' councils—[but] the opposite occurred. The Independent Socialist current, relying on the factory councils, conquered the majority in the trade unions.
The 1923 Vindication
And then in 1923, all the correctness of the orientation of the Independent Socialist left and the sectarian and erroneous character of the line of the German Communist Party of 1919 was confirmed, because in 1923, despite the defeat—on which a word in passing—despite the defeat suffered at the parliamentary level, despite the fact that the workers' councils were transformed into factory councils à la française, [despite the fact that they] lost their de facto power of workers' control in enterprises, [despite the fact] that the Social Democrats tried to institutionalize them and integrate them into a policy of class collaboration, as soon as the revolutionary upsurge of 1923 became precise, the prediction of the worker leaders of 1919 also became precise.
And the workers then seized spontaneously and naturally these organs that they had created in 1918 and with which they identified to make them the natural organs of revolutionary organisms for preparation of the seizure of power.
PART VII: Union Structure and Mass Syndicalisation (1919)
From Ernest Mandel's 1976 lecture on the German Revolution
The Fundamental Difference in Labor Movement Structure
And in Spain, we will find exactly the same thing. The committees are put in place after 48 hours, three, four days. No one contests them. They are recognized by everyone. It functions as if it were an institution accepted by almost the entire society, because everyone feels that there is such a force behind that it is practically suicidal to go and clash with it head-on.
So the union bureaucracy finds itself at the extreme right of the workers' movement already before the war. But one must never forget that the structure of the workers' movement of this epoch is totally different from the structure [of today].
I say totally different—for France, it is not so different, but for the other countries of Western Europe, yes, because the working class is little unionized. In the unions, there is a quite reduced minority of the working class.
The Statistical Reality: A Minority Movement
I give some figures. The German Social Democratic Party counts before the war, more than one million members. And in the unions, there are barely 2 million unionized. The Social Democratic Party will have in 1919, 7 million votes, 7 million votes, 2 million unionized—you see the relationships.
So the German working class, the number of industrial workers and employees, let's say even apart from commercial workers [in] transport. I don't know the figure by heart, but it must not be very far from 10 million. So 2 million unionized out of 10 million.
The Non-Unionized Public Sector
The civil servants are not unionized. The public services are not unionized. The railway workers are unionized because the railways had a private tradition. After that was nationalized, they accepted that the private structures [remain], but it's the only sector. The teachers are not [unionized]. Practically the entire public service apart from the railway workers is not unionized.
So obviously, in these conditions, the union bureaucracy has a function which is quite different [from] the function it has today in most European countries, and in a revolutionary crisis characterized by very broad mass activity, its effectiveness is very small, very small.
The Classic Phenomenon: Revolutionary Syndicalisation
Moreover, the classic phenomenon will occur. In 1919, there will be a massive wave of syndicalisation as the first result of the revolutionary upsurge. Workers by the millions now come to the unions. I believe the number of members goes from 2 million to 5 or 6 million in the space [of the revolutionary period].
So on this mass of new unionized [workers], except in the most backward regions, as I said earlier, and in small industry, the grip of the bureaucracy is small. It is the period in which the union left conquers the unions and there are astonishing phenomena.
The Unprecedented Conquest: The Metalworkers' Union
The left of the Independent Socialist Party conquers the metalworkers' union which counts 2 million members. It is the only time in the history of the Western workers' movement that this occurred. It never happened before and it will never happen again afterward.
The Bureaucracy's Diminished Power
In a revolutionary crisis characterized by very broad mass activity, [the bureaucracy's] effectiveness is very small. And the classic phenomenon will occur: in 1919, there will be a massive wave of syndicalisation as the first result of the revolutionary upsurge. Workers by the millions now come to the unions.
On this mass of new unionized [workers], except in the most backward regions and in small industry, the grip of the bureaucracy is small. It is the period in which the union left conquers the unions, and there are astonishing phenomena.
The Historical Uniqueness of 1919
What we saw at this time, not only in Germany, [but as] a universal phenomenon in Europe, [was] the emergence through the war and the post-war crisis of a new leadership... worker leadership at the enterprise level. A worker leadership—when we speak, when we say, we speak of these revolutionary confidence men, this has nothing to do with rebellious workers who lead here and there a wildcat strike.
These are the recognized leaders of the working class at the factory level, it is a completely different category. The emergence of this new layer of worker leaders at the enterprise level and at the local level—this is a decisive test for us, for our current.
The Disciplined Nature of Proletarian Revolution
To believe that a proletarian revolution is by definition chaotic, disorganized, anarchist, without capacity for self-discipline, is stupid and false. All Marxists have always known and always repeated that by the entire nature of the working class, by everything it learns in its industrial organizations, in the factory and in its mass organizations, they tend toward excesses of discipline and order, and not excesses of anarchy, chaos, disorganization.
The Spanish Parallel
And in Spain, we will find exactly the same thing. The committees are put in place after 48 hours, [I believe in] ten days, no one contests them. They are recognized by everyone. It functions as if it were an institution accepted by the quasi-totality of society, because everyone feels that there is such a force behind, that it is practically suicidal to go and clash with it head-on.
The Structural Transformation
So the union bureaucracy finds itself at the extreme right of the workers' movement, already before the war, but one must never forget that the structure of the workers' movement of this epoch is totally different from the current structure. Well, when I say totally different for France, it is not so different, but for the other countries of Western Europe, yes.
PART VIII: The Revolutionary Situation and General Strike Victory (1923)
From Ernest Mandel's 1976 lecture on the German Revolution
The Spectacular Confirmation of Revolutionary Crisis
And there was a spectacular confirmation at the end of a series of increasingly violent economic strikes, on the initiative of the Communist Party and the trade union left for motives that were formulated in a very intelligent manner, that is to say which spoke of the immediate demands of the workers but which manifestly implied much more.
The general strike was decreed in summer 1923 against the Cuno government, thus this was a very reactionary German bourgeois government moreover, and for the workers' government as [the Communists] called it. The general strike was victorious, it was a political general strike like the one against the Kapp [Putsch] in 1920, but this time under the impulse of the Communist Party and without there being military provocation by the bourgeoisie.
The Government Overthrown by General Strike
And the government was overthrown, the general strike overthrew the government. The bourgeoisie found itself practically without political solutions. It was in this climate that the Brandler leadership of the Communist Party sketched out a project for the conquest of power in Germany, and obviously the Communist International became involved with the first skirmishes within the leadership of the [Communist] Party.
Of the Soviet Union, and on the assessment of the world situation, on the assessment of the situation in Germany, on the key role of the German Revolution. In broad terms, the leadership of the Communist International and the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, with the personal exception of Stalin, but even there one must be a bit careful with the judgment, agreed to say that there was a revolutionary situation in Germany.
It was moreover difficult to deny this, everyone said it, it was visible to the naked eye, and that it was necessary to put the conquest of power on the agenda. And the project was advanced that Trotsky secretly leave Russia, [that] he come to Germany to support the struggle for power, the preparation of the insurrection.
Lenin's Three Factors Confirmed
Second, that the oppressed class, that is to say the working class, no longer allows itself to be governed and is conscious of it and manifests it. And third, that the intermediate classes either are neutralized or begin to lean to the side of the [working] class.
When there is coincidence of these three factors, one is in a true revolutionary situation. In 1923, the three factors were there. This was absolutely manifest, as they were there, obviously, in November-December 1918.
The Bourgeoisie's Incapacity to Govern
The incapacity of the bourgeoisie to govern was visible to the naked eye, the occupation of the Ruhr, the so-called passive resistance, the collapse of the central government in Berlin under the flick of a political general strike. All this showed in a manifest manner the disintegration of bourgeois power, the appearance of initiatives of dual power in numerous places in Germany, the fact that in two Länder, one openly discussed the arming of workers and the refusal to obey the orders of the central government.
I will not have a better [picture of] the terrible political crisis, the terrible crisis of government, of the bourgeois State, of the total paralysis of the bourgeois State.
The Working Class Refusal to be Governed
The will of the working class to no longer respect, [to no longer] recognize the power of the bourgeoisie, this too was visible to the naked eye. The wave of strikes, the wave of initiatives of stock seizure, the wave of arming of workers, the political general strike overthrowing the government under the slogan of constituting a workers' government.
This showed very clearly that the majority of the working class was ripe for the conquest of power and the conquest of hegemony, if not of the majority at least of the hegemony of the Communist Party which was a truly revolutionary party within this working class, [this] was moreover the indirect confirmation.
The Reactivation of Workers' Councils
And the workers then seized spontaneously and naturally these organs that they had created in 1918 and with which they identified to make them the natural organs of revolutionary organization for preparation of the seizure of power.
These organs, these workers' councils federated locally, generally have an armed wing. There are in most cities where these workers' councils subsist, armed detachments either coming from the decomposition of the army and thus from parts of the garrison which sided with the people in November 1918 and which have maintained their arms and which are in the process of demobilization, but which resist a bit their demobilization because they consider themselves as the armed wing of the workers' councils and which have seen what happened in Berlin, which have seen the Berlin massacre—who is going to defend [the councils against] the possibility of such a massacre, [or they are] composed by armed workers who armed themselves during the November revolution and who do not want to give up their arms.
Lenin's Definition of Revolutionary Situation Applied to 1923
[This brings us to the] definition of a revolutionary situation. This is also very, very important from the methodological point of view. You undoubtedly know Lenin's classic definition, classic in its simplicity and irreplaceable and incorrigible precisely by virtue of its simplicity.
Lenin says a revolutionary situation is characterized fundamentally by three factors. First, that the bourgeoisie, that the ruling class is in fact incapable of governing, and is conscious of it. Second, that the oppressed class, that is to say the working class, no longer allows itself to be governed, and is conscious of it and manifests it. And third, that the intermediate classes either are neutralized, or begin to lean toward the side of the working class.
When there is coincidence of these three factors, one is in a true revolutionary situation. In 1923, the three factors were there. This is absolutely manifest, as they were there, obviously, in November-December 1918.
Factor One: The Bourgeoisie's Incapacity to Govern
The incapacity of the bourgeoisie to govern was visible to the naked eye, the occupation of the Ruhr, the so-called passive resistance, the collapse of the central government in Berlin under the flick of a political general strike. All this showed in a manifest manner the disintegration of bourgeois power, the appearance of initiatives of dual power in numerous places in Germany, the fact that in two Länder, one openly discussed the arming of workers and the refusal to obey the orders of the central government.
I will not have a better [picture of] the terrible political crisis, the terrible crisis of government, of the bourgeois State, of the total paralysis of the bourgeois State.
Factor Two: The Working Class Refusal to be Governed
The will of the working class to no longer respect, [to no longer] recognize the power of the bourgeoisie, this too was visible to the naked eye. The wave of strikes, the wave of initiatives of stock seizure, the wave of arming of workers, the political general strike overthrowing the government under the slogan of constituting a workers' government.
This showed very clearly that the majority of the working class was ripe for the conquest of power and the conquest of hegemony, if not of the majority at least of the hegemony of the Communist Party which was a truly revolutionary party within this working class, [this] was moreover the indirect confirmation.
The Decision for Insurrection and International Involvement
It was in this climate that the Brandler leadership of the Communist Party sketched out a project for the conquest of power in Germany, and obviously the Communist International became involved with the first skirmishes within the leadership of the Soviet Union, and on the assessment of the world situation, on the assessment of the situation in Germany, on the key role of the German Revolution.
In broad terms, the leadership of the Communist International and the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, with the personal exception of Stalin, but even there one must be a bit careful with the judgment, agreed to say that there was a revolutionary situation in Germany. It was moreover difficult to deny this, everyone said it, it was visible to the naked eye, and that it was necessary to put the conquest of power on the agenda. And the project was advanced that Trotsky secretly leave Russia, [that] he come to Germany to support the struggle for power, the preparation of the insurrection.
The Question of the Intermediate Classes
As for the middle classes, the intermediate classes, the analysis is a bit more difficult, but I believe that in broad terms, it is also real [that they were leaning toward the working class].
Historical Analysis: This section reveals the climactic moment of the German Revolution when all three of Lenin's factors for revolutionary situation coincided. The general strike victory against Cuno demonstrated the objective reality of working class power—that a political general strike could overthrow governments without military provocation. The spontaneous reactivation of workers' councils showed the profound correctness of the Independent Socialist left's strategy in 1919 of preserving organizational forms during the ebb. Most significantly, Mandel shows how the armed character of the workers' councils created a genuine situation of dual power, with the bourgeoisie facing total paralysis of state authority. The involvement of the Communist International and the planned arrival of Trotsky indicate the international implications that all revolutionary forces understood were at stake in Germany.
PART IX: The Failed Insurrection and Decisive Turning Point (October 1923)
From Ernest Mandel's 1976 lecture on the German Revolution
Revolutionary Tactical Simplicity vs. Fatal Complexity
This is good advice to give to our future organisers of armed insurrection here in the hall: never create projects that are too complicated, because they will fail. These are things one can do when one has a general staff with an immense army, which is drilled, which marches in large manoeuvres [practised for] years, but the revolutionary army is made in another manner.
If one takes, for example, how Trotsky organised the October insurrection in Petrograd, it was quite the opposite. It was of limpid simplicity, very comprehensible, very easy to execute, even by people who were not great military geniuses. [But] affairs that are very, very complicated are affairs that are condemned to failure almost automatically.
Obviously, all these weaknesses were absolutely evident, visible in advance, [and] made this entire enterprise not only hazardous, but I would say 99% condemned to failure from the beginning. I suppose that Trotsky said this gently to Brandler from the start, but the fatal complexity remained.
The Overly Complicated German Project
What was Brandler's project? It was a typically German project, if I may say, without being accused of racism, very complicated, very well organized, with a very clever mechanism, whose first weakness that jumped out at you was that precisely it was infinitely too complicated.
This is good advice that [we should give to] our future organizers of armed insurrection here in the hall: never make projects that are too complicated, because they will fail. These are things one can do when one has a general staff with an immense army, which is drilled, which marches in large maneuvers [practiced for] years, but the revolutionary army is made in another manner.
If one takes for example the manner in which Trotsky organized the October insurrection in Petrograd, it was quite the opposite. It was of limpid simplicity, very comprehensible, very easy to execute, even by people who were not great military geniuses. [But] affairs that are very, very complicated are affairs that are condemned to failure almost automatically.
The Two Motors of the Plan
What was this affair [that Brandler planned]? Well, broadly, there were two principal motors for the action. On the one hand, the Communist ministers who had entered the so-called workers' governments of Saxony and Thuringia were supposed to use their position in these two governments to arm the workers of these two Länder in a quasi-legal manner, that is to say to take the arms of the local police and gendarmerie, because they did not have access to army weapons.
[They were] to take the arms—this was not so little, it was calculated, this was something that reached up to 5,000 rifles and perhaps revolvers and smaller weapons—[and] distribute these arms to workers, create workers' centuries as they were called, that is to say truly, a small workers' army in these two Länder which were situated geographically at the center of the country, geographically at the center, but not at the political center—this was already an enormous first weakness, that is to say to trigger an action from the periphery and not in the capital.
The Synthesis Motion Trap
Brandler made his great historical speech before the congress, this was the scenario that unfolded, and he proposed to the congress, but in very moderate terms and fundamentally hesitant [terms], to proclaim the general strike, to give the signal for the general arming of workers throughout the country in response to the entry of the army into the two Länder with workers' governments.
And his general appeal was quite vague, but not heard. [There was] a motion, the left Social Democrats tabled a motion, typically, what one calls in French Social Democratic congresses, a synthesis motion to create unanimity, and to give confidence. This is the immortal formula of Social Democratic congresses. "We give confidence to the leaders to..." one votes a motion saying, "we mandate the government to take all necessary measures to..." that is to say, we have nothing at all, we are in [a] signal case, and it ends up [being nothing] and the leaders of the Communist Party, what a terrible, catastrophic error, [they] voted this motion which was really voted unanimously at the Congress.
The Final Collapse
Well, then nothing happened. A negotiation opened between the so-called workers' government and the Reichswehr, that is to say it was an enterprise that repeated for the tenth time all the deceptions, all the betrayals, all the [traps], all the ambushes of the military chiefs after 1918.
While the negotiation was taking place, the Communist Party was outlawed, the communist newspapers were banned, the communist leaders were arrested, the ministers had to flee, otherwise they would have been arrested too. Then the government resigned, that was the most intelligent thing. Then the government resigned to protest against the placing of the Communist Party in clandestinity. Then the Reichswehr took power, there was no more power, so they took all the power and the whole affair collapsed.
Plan M's Cancellation
There was nothing left. The only thing left to do, Brandler did it, but this time in an inadequate manner. He immediately sent emissaries everywhere to say well, plan M is not executed, [we] do not carry out insurrection in the cities because all the antecedents, all the prerequisites are no longer fulfilled, the whole first part of the plan collapses.
In general, the clandestine emissaries, clandestine couriers, nothing arrived on time, and nothing arrived except in one city in Hamburg, where a rendezvous was missed, where thus the military apparatus did not receive the [countermanding] order to do nothing, and where the next morning, calmly, three or four hundred party militants launched themselves into the occupation, the seizure of weapons stocks and the occupation of police stations.
Hamburg: The Only Attempt
They noted [that they were] not marionettes, not Stalinized robots, and they immediately noted that there was nothing in the city, that there was no general strike, that there was nothing in the country. They reduced the damage to a minimum. It was not too tragic, it could have been a terrible massacre, they withdrew immediately.
This time, it was not a contemptible defeat. This time, it was the decisive turning point.
The International Bourgeois Response
The bourgeoisie stabilized the situation this time. The international bourgeoisie understood the great danger it had run. It repeated on a smaller scale what it would do later with the Marshall Plan, that is to say it gave very considerable credits to German capitalism, to the German economy to stabilize the situation from an economic point of view.
There was a monetary reform, a new mark founded on gold was launched, the economy was stabilized, exports were relaunched, politically and economically the situation was stabilized.
Historical Analysis: This section reveals the tragic irony of the German October—the moment when objective conditions for revolution were most favorable was also when the subjective factor failed most completely. Mandel's critique of Brandler's overly complex plan resonates with his Trotskyist understanding that revolutionary strategy must be comprehensible to the mass of militants, not just to military specialists. The "synthesis motion" trap shows how Social Democratic parliamentarism could paralyze even Communist leadership at crucial moments. Most tragically, the Hamburg incident demonstrates that rank-and-file militants were ready for action—what failed was not working class combativity but organizational preparation and leadership clarity. The international bourgeoisie's immediate massive intervention reveals their class consciousness about what was at stake: the fate of capitalism itself hung in the balance in Germany 1923.
PART X: Bourgeois Stabilization and the Return to Ultra-Leftism (1924)
From Ernest Mandel's 1976 lecture on the German Revolution
Hamburg's Intelligent Withdrawal
They reduced the damage to a minimum. It was not too tragic, it could have been a terrible massacre, they withdrew immediately. This time, it was not a contemptible defeat. This time, it was the decisive turning point.
International Bourgeois Class Consciousness
The bourgeoisie stabilized the situation this time. The international bourgeoisie understood the great danger it had run. It repeated on a smaller scale what it would do later with the Marshall Plan, that is to say it gave very considerable credits to German capitalism, to the German economy to stabilize the situation from an economic point of view.
There was a monetary reform, a new mark founded on gold was launched, the economy was stabilized, exports were relaunched, politically and economically the situation was stabilized.
The Electoral Reckoning of 1924
In 1924, there were elections which ended in a very heavy defeat for the Social Democratic Party [and for] the Communist Party compared to the influence it had gained in 1920-21, but obviously in considerable retreat compared to the positions it would have had in 1923.
There, the Communist Party still won, I don't know, 15 or 20% of the votes, which was enormous compared to the small positions it had had in 1921, electorally, but which was in considerable reflux - if there had been elections at the end of 1923, it would have had, I don't know, 30% of the votes, something like that, let's say a percentage equivalent to that of the Bolsheviks in the Constituent Assembly elections [in Russia].
The Tragic Change of Guard
There is moreover a small anecdote [that] ended this sad affair, which is that in the meantime, as a reaction to the defeat of the German October, there was a change of guard in the German Communist Party. The right lost power, the left, that is to say the ultra-left, that is to say the sectarians [who had opposed] the German October [came to power].
The Zinovievist [faction] of Ruth Fischer takes over when it becomes the leadership of the Party, it is they who conduct the campaign [for the elections], it is they who have the elected [members] in Parliament in majority, which moreover means that afterwards in the unified left opposition, there will be quite a few deputies and ex-deputies to the Reichstag participating in the left or the extreme left.
The Parliamentary Circus Spectacle
And they behave in Parliament in an extraordinary manner, that is to say like ultra-leftists, to discredit parliamentary life. They show up in overalls with trumpets, they disorganize the meetings, finally it is a spectacle like had never been seen in Europe, which moreover does harm - one must not underestimate the effects of this affair - which actually objectively prepares the Nazi campaign of liquidation of parliamentary democracy for the benefit of the extreme right, not for the benefit of the left.
The Incomprehension of the Historical Turn
This expresses an incomprehension of the turn that had taken place in Germany. To do this on the eve of the conquest of power by the Proletariat, one could still reflect [on it], I believe it is even contraindicated at that moment, well at least at that moment, it forms part of a reasonable, thought-out strategic project, whereas the fact [of doing it] after the defeat, after the decisive turn, this signifies in reality no longer understanding that the conquest of power is not in front of oneself, one must prepare for a long struggle that extends over years and to do this outside of any strategic project.
Trotsky's Understanding vs. The Comintern's Blindness
This is moreover a terrible weakness of the Communist International, contrary to Trotsky who understood immediately, and who speaks of a defeat of the German October and who makes the parallel with Russia and who keeps [his] powder dry, this is fundamentally one of the two birth certificates of the Trotskyist movement, one being the [New] Course, the other being the famous "Lessons of October" where he criticizes the leadership of the Russian Communist Party and of the German Communist Party.
Trotsky understands that this is a decisive turn now, this is the beginning of the reflux, the long-term [reflux] of the German Revolution.
The leadership of the Communist International began by [issuing] profuse denials, it minimizes, it says this is not a defeat, Trotsky has lost his head, he repeats the stories of Levi, that is to say the leadership of the Communist International does not understand the difference between a momentary and conjunctural defeat like that of 1921 and a decisive turn - the end of the post-war revolutionary period, the temporary stabilization as it was called, which began in October 1923.
Part XI: The Methodological Conclusion: The Complete Context of Anti-Sectarian Analysis
A methodological conclusion: do not make splits on questions of tactics and political line. Do not make splits on these questions because you condemn yourselves to impotence and to political degeneration and you weaken the party in a completely decisive manner. This is the infantile disorder of Trotskyism which it took us very long to overcome and which is not yet entirely overcome.
[Paul Levi] leaves the party with the cream of the cream of the German working class, with all the leaders of the factory councils, of the workers' councils, with those who had led the movement, the driving wing of the mass movement for five years and they condemn themselves and condemn them to the most total impotence and isolation. All these comrades will no longer play any role in the workers' struggle in Germany. This is a tragedy because these were among the most capable, they eliminate themselves from the historical process.
Comparison Between August 4, 1914 and January 1933 as Clear Historical Betrayals
What is a historical betrayal of a current of the workers' movement? These are events so clear, so precise, so decisive from the historical point of view that they bring the cadres, or at least the essential part of the cadres, who carry the revolutionary tradition to choose their camp definitively.
After August 4, 1914, there was no revolutionary Marxist who could have doubts about the betrayal of Social Democracy. Before August 4, 1914, this was not true—revolutionary Marxists as experienced as comrade Lenin had doubts about the historical betrayal of Social Democracy. After August 4, 1914, it was finished. One could no longer have doubts because these were decisive events.
After the capitulation of the Communist International and of the German Communist Party before Hitler in January 1933, comrade Trotsky could no longer have doubts about the possibility of straightening out the Communist International and the Communist parties. The creation of a new party, of a new international had become necessary.
The Principle of Staying Inside Until Definitive Betrayals Occur
But before this great historical crisis, this great historical betrayal, not only is doubt permitted, but doubt is justified. The line of straightening out existing parties and existing currents is a credible and realistic line that is adopted by the majority of cadres. This means that if one makes splits at such moments, if one goes outside, if one stays outside, one loses the possibility of influencing the essential cadres who carry the construction of the party.
Now this argument has nothing to do with numbers—whether it involves 100,000, or 10,000, or 1,000 or 100. The reasoning remains exactly the same because 5 who separate from 100 are just as impotent as 5,000 who separate from 100,000. One cuts oneself off from the essential cadres who have the mission and the historical possibility of building the party in a determined historical context.
Historical Analysis: This final section reveals the full tragedy of the German Revolution's denouement. The international bourgeoisie's immediate massive intervention demonstrates their superior class consciousness - they understood what had been at stake and acted decisively to prevent any future repetition. The electoral paradox is cruel: the KPD's 15-20% in 1924 was "enormous" compared to their 1921 isolation but catastrophically reduced from the 30% they would have achieved at the peak of the revolutionary crisis.
Most tragically, the party's turn back to ultra-leftism under Ruth Fischer repeated the very errors that had already proven disastrous in 1919-1921. The parliamentary spectacle with "overalls and trumpets" objectively prepared the ground for Nazi tactics - a devastating example of how ultra-left adventurism serves reaction. Only Trotsky immediately grasped the decisive historical significance of the defeat, leading to his "Lessons of October" and the formation of the Left Opposition.
Mandel's final methodological warning against sectarian splits resonates powerfully: revolutionary organizations that fragment over tactical differences condemn themselves to impotence precisely when unity is most needed for the long struggle ahead.