Invierno-primavera 2024
Decists (Russian communist left)
Submitted by Noa on Wed, 2011-12-14 17:33
I don't know if this site is related, but at leftcom.wordpress.com there was mention some months ago of a collection of texts from the Decists (democractic centralist group). The comrades of ARS have made an index of this collection at revsoc.org
I stumbled on this collection a year ago while I was translating the index to Under the Banner of Marxism ( libcom.org ), and started looking for the author of some interestig economic articles in it, who is named Dashkovskij. I found that he belonged to the decists. Here is a translation of a letter by him:
Some other texts from the decists;
I like the letter by Dashkovksij the most. He miraculously survived the purges and after 1956 was known as an excellent Marx scholar (he died in 1972). Another Decist who survived is E.M. Dune who wrote about his experience in "Notes of a Red Guard" which you can partly access via Googlebooks.
Forum:
Comience aquí...
- Plataforma
- Por el Comunismo
Estamos a favor del Partido, pero nosotros no somos el Partido ni su único embrión. Nuestra tarea es participar en su construcción, interviniendo en todas las luchas de la clase, tratando de vincular sus demandas inmediatas al programa histórico, el comunismo.
Únete a nosotros!
Apoya a la Tendencia Comunista Internacionalista!
ICT sections
Adverts
Reunión pública en Lambertville, NJ
LA BARBARIE IMPERIALISTA EN PALESTINA E ISRAEL
REUNIÓN Y DEBATE PÚBLICO
Después de casi tres meses y la masacre de 20.000 proletarios palestinos, el capitalismo continúa empujando a la humanidad hacia el abismo. La barbarie imperialista en Palestina e Israel es nada más que la demostración más reciente de la marcha del capital hacia la guerra mundial. Los trabajadores no tienen ningún interés en sacrificarse por cualquier bando capitalista en esta guerra; a su vez, sólo la fraternización entre los proletarios palestinos e israelíes, y la renovación de la iniciativa obrera en todo el mundo, presenta la posibilidad de detener el descenso al conflicto generalizado.
Vengan para escuchar la perspectiva de internacionalistas sobre el episodio más reciente de la barbarie en Medio Oriente, y cómo podemos luchar contra los planes sangrientos que el capitalismo avanza contra la humanidad, en Lambertville, Nueva Jersey, el lunes 15 de enero, día de MLK Jr. a las 3 PM, en la Biblioteca Pública de Lambertville, 6 Lilly St., 08530.
Cuando: el lunes 15 de enero de 2024 a las 3 pm.
Donde: Biblioteca Pública de Lambertville, 6 Lilly St., 08530, Lambertville, NJ.
Grupo Obrero Internacionalista
Recent publications
User login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
leftcom. wordpress.co is not
leftcom. wordpress.co
is not connected with ICT, this is a "group" of ONE crazy supporter of ICC. Not because of ICC he is crazy, i think from childhood.
i hope u got it
Thanks for the information
Thanks for the information eres! Yes it is quite clear that the person who keeps referring to the ICT really means the ICC!
marxists.org Trotsky and
Trotsky and Decists article.
What was the evolution of the political ideas of Sapronov and Smirnov, there is now no way of judging, and there probably never will be until the day the Russian proletariat makes public the confiscated documents in the secret archives of the Stalinist police. But what the ideas of the Democratic-Centralists were in the days of the following letter by Trotsky, that is, around the year 1928, is implicit in the questions put by Borodai. In a word, they were: The proletariat has already lost power; the triumph of Stalin over the Opposition marks the triumph of the Thermidor, that is, the counter-revolution; the working class does not rule in Russia and Russia is no longer a workers’ state; it is necessary to prepare a new revolution to restore the proletariat to state power.
These contents Trotsky denied, as is clear from his reply to Borodai. It is the arguments he employed in refuting Borodai’s views that are interesting and important, both for a knowledge of the situation in the Opposition in those days and, much more to the point, for a Marxian evaluation of the present situation in, and the class character of, the Russian state.
Trotsky wrote: “They content
Trotsky wrote: "They content themselves with sectarian mutterings against us, and count meanwhile on spontaneous movements."
I find that the relation between Trotsky's group and the decists then has some similar characteristics to the relation between the ICC and the ICT nowadays.
Trotsky accused the decists of parasitism. Smirnov called Trotsky a half-menshevik. Trotsky called Smirnov a left caricature of Stalin. And so on. Meanwhile, we're all for unity but the other side should make the first move.
Dashkovskij tried a proposal for unity, but the Trotskyists refused and furthermore he got blamed by his own fellow decists for making a sacrifice of principles.
However depressing this episode is, perhaps some lessons can be drawn from it nonetheless. Unfortunately, I don't have a clue what those lessons could be though.
Trotsky was a supporter of
Trotsky was a supporter of bourgeois factions, first the Stalinists which he my not have directly supported but in his assessment of the USSR as a workers state he reinforced the idea the Stalinists wanted that there was a gain to be defended and this bore fruit in WW2 in the shape of millions dead for no proletarian gain.
Subsequently Trotsky and his successors became ever more collaborationist
I wouldn't accuse the ICC of that and would not place them in the capitalist camp until they start calling for liquidation of others like the ICT which remains a low point even if their motivation is not collaborationist and they have retracted the idea of iscrediting us.
At the end of the day the two organisations embody contradictory positions which are the limitation to joint work even if it does not completely rule it out.
The Decists should probably have rejected organisational fusion with Trotsky in my poorly informed opinion, as did the Italian Communist left eventually,
Today some elements of Trotskyist groups may be open to our influence, but I'd say anything beyond minimal effort in that regard was a waste of time.
Shachtman is correct about
Shachtman is correct about the importance of Trotsky's original criterion of workers's control (rather than his later one on nationalized property). Trotsky's argument with the decists is also important. If in 1928 the dictatorship of the proletariat was liquidated and with it the party, if the Thermidor was completed and so reform was impossible, then it's necessary to unfurl the banner of a second, proletarian (political and social) revolution and found a new party on a new foundation. However, the question for Trotsky is not about 'yes or no', but putting forward a political alternative. It is here that no answer is provided by the decists. Take Smirnov. The text 'Several considerations' is almost certainly written by him. Smirnov indeed says that the Thermidor happened and a new party must be founded. But what does he put forward, what is his analysis? He himself admits that he has no idea what we should understand by a new slogan for the dictatorship of the proletariat. And furthermore, Smirnov thinks a peaceful development of the second proletarian revolution is possible, after all, Engels thought the same for socialism in England. This text is at the same time very anti-Trotskyite.
I think Dashkovskij made some good criticisms of Smirnov. To think that the decists could fight Stalinism without the help of the Trotskyists is nuts.
Your last sentence is
Your last sentence is probably true but there was no Russian solution to the problem and the task was to establish what had happened and what to do on a global scale.
That task was not carried out by Trotsky, so with or without his forces I cant see a positive outcome.
The lack of an international
The lack of an international perspective is one of Trotsky's critcisms to the decists (which in the text 'Several considerations' is responded to).
The health of the relationship between the decist group and Trotsky's group would only matter if one held there was a chance of restoring the proletariat's sway. Of course according to marxism socialism was impossible in a single, backward country like Russia. Perhaps it's true that the opposition's insight about this was clouded by their need of a little hope for deliverance of their own exile, imprisonment in the camps and torture, but we should not count their mistake too heavily I think.
Mmmmm, Noa, I think you may
Mmmmm, Noa, I think you may be misunderstanding Trotsky and Trotskyism.
Trotsky' s was a variant of Stalinism, a fight within the bureaucracy.
From ICT pamphlet on Trotsky
Trotsky might be excused for failing to notice this process of degeneration but he was, in fact, one of its principle architects. It was he who, having organised the victory of the Red Army in 1920, then concluded that some form of “militarisation of labour” could be extended to the entire working class in order to discipline it for the reconstruction of Russia. It was he who presented the case against the Workers’ Opposition at the 10th Party Congress (March 1921) which resulted in the banning of all factions in the Party. It was also Trotsky who engineered the secret military alliance with German imperialism in 1922. Had the subsequent development of Trotsky’s theory and practice entailed a break with this sorry past the fight for communism may have taken a different course. In reality, from 1923 on, Trotsky not only failed to recognise these errors, but even turned them into the very framework of his subsequent ideas, as an analysis of his “opposition” to Stalinism shows.....
But let us leave the final word to the Russian worker who said of the struggle between the bureaucracy and the opposition in 1923:The workers will ask me what your fundamental differences are; to speak frankly I do not know how to answer.
This single proletarian sentence sums up the nature of the Left Opposition.
Trotsky's was no radical opposition to 'Socialism in One Country'
Read the section here
I am going to say that had Trotsky gned the leadership., it would not have been a better outcome, but that's just idle what if talk.
However, the casee against Stalin and Trotsky is a fundamental pillar of ICT perspectives, both may hav had early saving graces, both left the proletarian camp.
To be clear, I was only
To be clear, I was only expressing my own opinion. The decist leader Smirnov thought that the "responsibility of bolsheviks" is to "ruthlessly expose trotskyists". And further;
,,That's why I thought that in the emerging revolutionary movement of the proletariat, they would amount to an opportunistic group, something like former mensheviks. And that's why in a letter about the position of Trotsky, I called him a half-menshevik. I think that I'm not mistaken.
Therefore, assigning oneself the task of association with this tendency is useless and harmful. By the way, as usually happens with opportunistic tendencies, it divides into an infinite number of groups and sub-coteries who, without seeing the possibility neither of coming to an agreement, nor to breaking up, cast their glances to the "Leader", who could give them the overall "guidelines", no matter how unstable the latter are. And when this "orientation" is obtained, then, not daring to openly criticize it each direction begins to reinterpret it differently. Their name "bolshevik-leninists" - sheer hypocrisy: with it they want at least somewhat hide the fact that they are not bolsheviks and not leninists."
It was not every decists who felt this strongly against Trotsky's group (for instance not Dashkovskij, which is why I prefer his view).
Remember that Stalin called Trotsky a 'cinema revolutionary' whose 'permanent revolution' theory was just capitulationist Kautskyism. Trotsky in the text introduced by Shachtman also points out that the early decist leader Ossinsky moved completely to the rightwing. So I think Trotsky has a point that Smirnov looks somewhat like a left version of Stalin (again, not all decists agreed with Smirnov, and they probably would have cringed about his anti-Trotsky language). For Trotskyists reading that ICT text I think it will look like a left charicature of a Stalinist text.
Then Trotskyists must be
Then Trotskyists must be more illiterate than we imagine!
A left charicature of
A left charicature of stalinism is not stalinism. It would make no sense indeed to call the decists (or the ICT) stalinist. So what did Trotsky mean? Well the ICT text states:
Which is what Smirnov did; he called Trotsky a half-menshevik. But Trotsky avoided a certain kind of anti-Stalinism, which sees Stalinism in every mind-fart or thing you disagree with. Smirnov for instance accuses Trotsky of using the amalgamation method of Stalin, etc. because trotsky said the decists were close to Korsch allegedly (in fact Korsch's wife translated their platform). But I would say that this over-use of the allegation of Stalinism causes it to lose most of its meaning.
Trotsky said somewhere that such extreme anti-Stalinism is Stalinism in reverse.
Noa I think you mean
Noa
I think you mean "caricature" but why do you keep banging on about the Decists (or rather Smirnov)? Russian left communists are not part of our tradition so we can take them or leave them. From what I have understood (and you will find an article on our site which gives details like Korsch's wife's translation of their platform) they were a reaction to the decline of the revolution and most of their activity (unlike say Miasnikov) was inside the party as was that of the Left Opposition. Or are you just a Trotskyist?
Yes I got that info from the
Yes I got that info from the article on your site. It also says that the decist platform was translated also into French by Reveil Communiste, the group around Pappalardi.
So it was know to the German and Italian left historically, which makes, I woud argue, the 'Russian' decists part of the left communist tradition. It's the somewhat poor knowledge about the decists (not completely unknown of course) which is why I bring them up. If I was a Trotskyist I would dismiss them, instead of taking them serious. If we take them serious, we would see how they cope with having to operate outside of the party after the 15th Congress.
It seems your take is that they should have quit the party on their own way earlier. I'm sure the decists also had debates on this, but as of now I don't have a clear picture what their analysis was.
Cleishbotham (or anyone
Cleishbotham (or anyone else), perhaps you can explain why do you consider Miasnikov part of the left communist tradition. Just because his activity was outside the party and he opposed the Kronstadt repression? No, because there were non-communist people who did the same. You claim it is because he crystalised his activity in organisational form? Well, others like anarchists or mensheviks probably also did, but there was no lasting organisation created or inspired by him (unlike Trotsky). From the point of view of his ideas perhaps? No, these were closer to anarcho-syndicalism. Maybe tradition is more subjective, so which "authoritative" left communists considered him part of their tradition? I don't know anyone who did. In general, this of course raises the question of what makes someone part of the left communist tradition and what does it mean, if anything.
Here's a talk in French on the decists at a recent conference about left communism; "Les décistes et les oppositions de gauche au sein du Parti communiste russe" par Jean-Jacques Marie (first segment):
Noa Have only just seen your
Noa
Have only just seen your comment. I think you raise an important issue. What is "left communist"? I think the search for left communists everywhere has tended to degrade the whole definition. For us the one sure thing is the "communist left" which we use about the Italian tradition (from which we are derived). I suppose in Russia the definition includes all those who opposed the decline of the Bolsheviks from the Bolsheviks' original tradition (and who were not followers of Trotsky's Left Opposition) but that is a debate ...
It is a debate, although like
It is a debate, although like many I suspect I am hampered by a very limited knowledge of the texts of the Russian left communists, which is why the links and contributions on this thread are so interesting. But before we discuss the Russian left we need a framework for defining the class nature of political organisations. Some of the contributions here are clearly arguing that Trotskyism was just a variant of Stalinism and this also seems to be the view of the CWO's pamphelt on Trotksyism, which is quoted here.
BTW I'm a close sympathiser of the ICC and I don't think i can be accused of being soft on Trotskyism - a few years ago now I reviewed the CWO pamphlet for World Revolution (still on their website)
Both the ICC and the ICT clearly identify with the Italian Communist Left, so my question is: if as the CWO pamphlet says Trotsky was a faction leader of the Russian party and state, and his movement was a product of the bureaucracy defending anti-working class positions, why did the comrades of the Italian Left spend so much effort trying to politically collaborate with him before 1934? Why didn't they just denounce him straight off?
We'e not going to be clear about the Russian left communist opposition unless we are clear about the class nature of the Left Opposition around Trotsky, because in the 1920s they are completely intertwined.
Another translation which
Another translation which shows a little bit more of the Decists's attitude to both Miasnikov and Trotsky: libcom.org
In Russian there is also a text from a Trotskyist group to the Decists: lib.ru (search for К ТОВАРИЩАМ ГРУППЫ "15" , and you can copy-paste it into an e-translation site). They mostly complain about a lack of efforts from the Decists (especially Smirnov) to work together with them.
Mark Thanks for your post.
Mark
Thanks for your post. I remember your review (which was along the same lines as the comment above whilst attempting to defend us from the prejudices of the Trotskyist Al Richardson in "Revolutionary History" as I recall). Indeed it is the only review of any pamphlet by the CWO or ICT in WR since we were formed and that by a non-member. I notice too that the ICC managed to insert a sectarian comment in their introduction to your own booklet on the British Communist Left on our failure to review it (we would have reviewed it if we had known it was going to be an ICC pamphlet but you gave us it personally and our main comment would have been "this reads like an ICC take on history"). Apparently there are rules for some but not for others.
However to deal with the substance of your post you are mixing up two types of argument. Trotskyism defined itself as yet another form of social democracy with the French turn (1934-5) and that it is when the Italian Left announced that Trotsky had "crossed the Rubicon". We on the other hand looking back (and with the benefit of hindsight) can see that Trotskyism was an opposition within the state and party (and only after that in the class). It accounts in good measure for its failure.
And I think much the same can be levelled at at least some of the Russian Left Communist fractions. This is a principal reason for being very cautious about the generic term "left communist".
It is the same sort of argument about Kronstadt which was hardly noticed by either the German or Italian Left at the time but has assumed enormous significance in our understanding of the process of counter-revolution since. We cannot ignore it now.
I noticed my link to the
I noticed my link to the Trotskyist letter (12 October 1928) was broken, this one is ok: lib.ru
Another thing; I said Trotskyists today would not be interested in the Decists, but the audio of Jean-Jacques Marie's lecture disproves this, because he's a Trotskyist historian. He's not very positive about them, but contrary to what you'd expect, it's because (to put it simply) they were not radical enough in his eyes.
@Cleish, but you know Smirnov made this judgement about Trotskyism already at the time and in much harsher terms (not only did he not need hindsight, he predicted it would happen!). I think Dashkovskij's more cooperative attitude was an exception within the Decists. But they all have a critical position to Trotskyism, though the reasons/objections for that can surprise you when you read for example the ones Smirnov gave. And even Dashkovskij when he responds to Sapronov, fires back at him by claiming that Sapronov holds similar believes to the Trotskyists. Thus we learn at the same more about what "really existing" Trotskyist groups thought then in Russia (as opposed to just focus on Trotsky in exile).
Now about Kronstadt, it's true the Decists in these texts don't condemn the repression but see it in the context of peasant uprisings, etc. But at the time Miasnikov didn't seem to bother about that, because he tried to organise with the Decists (even though all but one were in prison). But if we are consistent we have to condemn Miasnikov as well, namely for trying to collaborate with these people who supported the Kronstadt supression, though he can generously be forgiven because of the desperate situation he was in.
The Decists, like the Trotskyists, had arguments about understanding the process of counter-revolution, though obviously their analysis was distorted by the hope of being able to restore the dictatorship of the proletariat... yes, why not be consistent and see the Octobre revolution carrying the seeds of failure from the start (certainly with Brest-Litovsk peace treaty).
Btw, here’s a Russian text by
Btw, here's a Russian text by Smirnov from beginning 1922 (in Red Virgin Soil) about the new economic policy: ruthenia.ru
I take the point about
I take the point about Kronstadt and hindsight. The comrades of the Italian Left certainly seem to have concluded that they were wrong to spend so much time and energy on trying to collaborate with Trotskyism - although they didn’t dismiss it as capitalist from the start.
I think Noa is right to warn against the overuse (or misuse) of hindsight to judge political currents of the past. The method of the Italian Left was always one of patience and rigour, avoiding hasty judgements, which is precisely why they managed to avoid the errors of those who ended up dismissing the Russian revolution and the Bolsheviks as bourgeois from the start.
I’m still not entirely clear what the position of the CWO/ICT is on Trotskyism. Cleish’s reference to its “failure” indicates it was proletarian to start with but, as I said in my last post, the strong impression from reading their pamphlet (now admittedly over 10 years old) is that there was nothing proletarian in it from the beginning. Can we agree that it was a weak proletarian reaction to the degeneration of the Russian revolution but it was deeply marred by opportunism towards Stalinism and social democracy? We may disagree about exactly when it went over to the capitalist camp (1934 or 1939), but we would be in a better position to understand the left communist oppositions.
On these, surely the fact that they came out of the Bolshevik Party itself was a sign of the surviving proletarian nature of the party in the early 1920s? It may have been futile with hindsight to try to restore it from within, but groups like Miasnikov's "Workers' Group of the Russian Communist Party" were absolutely right not to simply abandon it without trying.
In this thread I indeed give
In this thread I indeed give Trotskyism more of a chance, why? Because I don't believe that it's helpful to say that the Decists are right and Trotsky is wrong. That would merely be consigning the Decists into oblivion of the annals of left communist "tradition". So a bit provocative I ponder here aloud whether Trotsky perhaps was not right and so on, in order to induce a closer investigation of the Decists and their arguments. And even for Trotskyists today it's not difficult to be sympathetic with the Decists, e.g. Tony Cliff:
So it's not enough to side with the underdog, with the "good guys", in the story. It's very easy even for a bourgeois historian to sympathise with the Decists in terms of their idealism or moral passion. So perhaps Trotsky was right in the late 20s and perhaps Lenin was right in the early 20s, against the Decists.
There is information about the Decists on the marxists.org site (a search for "Sapronov" gives over a 100 results).
Trotsky mentions them at the Dewey commission: marxists.org
[quote]TROTSKY: Sapronov denied the necessity for the defense of the Soviet Union. This was a distinction between our opposition and the ultra-lefts.
...
GOLDMAN: Do you know Y.N. Drobnis?
TROTSKY: Yes.
GOLDMAN: What were your relations with him?
TROTSKY: Our relations were of a friendly nature. He worked in the Ukraine. He was an old worker and member of the Party, two times condemned to death by the Whites during the Civil War. One time he was fusillated [shot – A.M.G.] by the Whites, but only wounded. When the Whites must abandon the town, the Reds found him among the corpses. He belonged to the Opposition, but not to my group. He belonged to the group of Sapronov. It was named an ultra-left group. But he was in sympathy personally with me. Before my deportation he came to me and gave me a gift.
GOLDMAN: Where, in Alma-Ata or Moscow?
TROTSKY: No, in Moscow. He gave me a pencil and fountain pen.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled from the Party, to the best of your knowledge?
TROTSKY: Yes.
GOLDMAN: Did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: Yes, in 1928 or 1929.
GOLDMAN: He was expelled at the Fifteenth Congress, was he?
TROTSKY: Yes, with all the others.
GOLDMAN: Since then, have you heard from him?
TROTSKY: Never.
GOLDMAN: Have you written to him?
TROTSKY: Never.
GOLDMAN: Do you know M.S. Boguslavsky?
TROTSKY: Yes.
GOLDMAN: What do you know about him; what were your relations with him?
TROTSKY: He was connected with Drobnis and Sapronov, and had been for a long time in the same group.
GOLDMAN: The ultra-left group?
TROTSKY: The ultra-left group. He was in that group, he belonged to them, but he did not have any animosity to me. We were personally friendly. He was for a certain time the chairman of an important commission of the Council of the People’s Commissariat. I met him there and got to know him personally.
GOLDMAN: Was he expelled at the Fifteenth Congress?
TROTSKY: In the same manner as the others.
GOLDMAN: When did he return to the Party – when did he capitulate?
TROTSKY: It was together with Smirnov in November of 1929.
GOLDMAN: Did you have any communication with him prior to his capitulation, before his capitulation?
TROTSKY: Possibly, in the time I was in Alma-Ata, he wrote me a letter before his capitulation.
GOLDMAN: You don’t remember?
TROTSKY: I don’t remember.
GOLDMAN: After his capitulation, did you communicate with him?
TROTSKY: Never.
GOLDMAN: You received no letters from him?
TROTSKY: Never.
GOLDMAN: You sent him no messages?
TROTSKY: Never.
[/quote]
Lenin replies to Sapronov and other Decists like Bubnov and Yurenev at the 9th party congress:
The entire congress is online in Russian with the transcript of the speeches by Sapronov, Yurenev,...
p.s. Trotsky above means a
p.s. Trotsky above means a different Smirnov than the Decist Smirnov (there were many Smirnovs). Vladimir Mikhailovich Smirnov didn't capitulate.
Noa, all the material you are
Noa, all the material you are finding and pointing us to is extremely interesting as well as important, but I have to ask: why the Decists in particular? As I'm sure you know there are other communist fractions that came out of the Bolshevik Party, and while this is not in any way a 'beauty contest', from what I have read I would say the group around Miasnikov is probably clearer, and is closer to the communist left tradition. The Decists are not completely unknown, and there is a consideration of their positions (albeit based on much more limited knowledge) in the ICC's 2005 book on the Russian Communist Left, which is my main source for this discussion (unfortunately not available online as far as I know).
This other stuff is just for
This other stuff is just for reference. Only the new found documents matter. At most the translations done so far are 40 pages together, so not too much to read. It's indeed essential to compare and contrast these few Decist letters to the viewpoints of other left opposition groups, including Trotsky. Compare them even to Stalin's positions (see Stalin's response to Sapronov and Rafail Farbman). By the way, Sapronov won a motion against Stalin at the March 1920 congress of the CP(Ukraine)b. This is an interesting episode. More in the book online by Равич-Черкасский: История Коммунистической партии (большевиков) Украины» (Харьков, 1923). Lenin's response to this influence of the decists was to dissolve the elected CC of the CPUb at the 9th RCP congress. But perhaps he was right. And not to break the stick here, but perhaps Stalin was also right that the decists were demagogues, etc. Could more democracy really solve the problems? Stalin complained also that there was not enough democracy, with the workers councils being taken over by the party. But was it not an illusion to believe that a dictatorship of the proletariat could last for more than a few years in one country, and so backwards (relatively) at that, like Russia?
Dashkovskij's letter deals with the theme of capitulation (he wrote also another text about self-criticism, this is also online). Some people within the Decists with the most radical position (speaking about Bonapartism and so on) eventually capitulated. Of course others withstood torture, self-immolated as a protest or managed to revolt even in the camps. Both capitulation and defeat are part of the tradition. That's why the analyses made during the bad times are maybe more important. I think that's what the ICC's interest is about in the Bilan journal from the 30s. The difference is that the Decists debates in 1928-29 were held by people in a country who themselves took part in the dictatorship of the proletariat, and experienced first hand counter-revolution, yet still believed to live in the era of (wars and) revolutions.