Lenin and Bukharin’s Theses on Communist Parties and Parliamentarism, adopted at the Second Congress

Introduction by Trotsky: The New Epoch and the New Parliamentarianism

From the start, from the epoch of the First International, the attitude of the socialist parties to parliamentarianism was that bourgeois parliaments should be used for agitational purposes. Participation in parliament was considered as a means of developing class consciousness, i.e., of awakening the hatred of the proletariat for the ruling classes. This attitude has changed, under the influence not of theory, but of the course of political events. As a result of the development of the productive forces and the extension of the arena of capitalist exploitation, capitalism and the parliamentary states acquired a lasting stability.

As a consequence, the parliamentary tactics of the socialist parties adapted themselves to the ‘organic’ legislative work of the bourgeois parliament, and the struggle for reforms within the framework of capitalism became increasingly significant for these parties, as well as the dominance of the so-called minimum programme of socialdemocracy, and the transformation of maximum programme into a platform for debating the altogether remote ‘final goal’. In these circumstances parliamentary careerism and corruption flourished and the vital interests of the working class were secretly, and sometimes openly, betrayed.

The attitude of the Third International toward parliamentarism is determined not by a new doctrine, but by the change in the role of parliament itself. In the preceding historical epoch parliament was an instrument of the developing capitalist system, and as such played a role that was in a certain sense progressive. In the modern conditions of unbridled imperialism parliament has become a weapon of falsehood, deception and violence, a place of enervating chatter. In the face of the devastation, embezzlement, robbery and destruction committed by imperialism, parliamentary reforms which are wholly lacking in consistency, durability and order lose all practical significance for the working masses. 

Parliamentarianism, like bourgeois society as a whole, is losing its stability. The transition from an epoch of stability to an epoch of crisis has necessitated the adoption of new tactics by the proletariat in the sphere of parliamentarianism. Even in the past period the Russian workers’ party (Bolsheviks), for example, developed an essentially revolutionary parliamentarianism, the reason being that the political and social equilibrium of Russia was destroyed by the 1905 revolution and the country entered a period of storm and stress. 

Those Socialists who, while sympathizing with Communism, point out that their countries are not yet ripe for revolution and refuse to break with the parliamentary opportunists have as their starting-point the conscious or semi-conscious assessment of the approaching epoch as one of the relative stability of imperialist society and believe, therefore, that in the struggle for reforms a coalition with Turati and Longuet can have practical results.

Communism, however, must be based on a theoretical analysis of the character of the present epoch (the culminating point of capitalism, its imperialist self-negation and self-destruction, the uninterrupted spread of civil war etc.). The forms of political relations and groupings can vary from country to country, but their essential nature remains everywhere the same. For us the goal is the direct political and technical preparation of a proletarian uprising to destroy bourgeois power and establish the new power of the proletariat. 

At the present time parliament cannot be used by the Communists as the arena in which to struggle for reforms and improvements in working-class living standards as was the case at certain times during the past epoch. The focal point of political life has shifted fully and finally beyond the boundaries of parliament. Even so, the bourgeoisie is still forced, not only for its relations with the working class, but also by the complex relations within the bourgeois class, to push measures sometimes and somehow through parliament. In parliament the various cliques haggle for power, exhibiting their strengths, betraying their weaknesses and compromising themselves etc., etc. 

The immediate historical task of the working class is therefore to wrest these apparatuses from the hands of the ruling classes, breaking and destroying them and replacing them with new organs of proletarian power. At the same time it is very much in the interests of the revolutionary general staff of the working class to have its reconnaissance units in the parliamentary institutions of the bourgeoisie in order to hasten their destruction. The fundamental difference between the tactics of a revolutionary Communist who enters parliament and a social-democratic parlamentarian here emerges clearly. The social-democratic deputies act on the assumption of the relative stability and the indefinite duration of the existing regime. They set themselves the task of achieving reforms at all costs, and are concerned that the masses should value properly each gain as the fruit of Socialist parliamentarianism (Turati, Longuet and Co.). 

A new tactic is emerging to replace the old and compromising parliamentarianism. It is one of the weapons with which parliamentarianism in general will be destroyed. However, the disgusting traditions of the old parliamentary tactics have driven some revolutionary elements to oppose parliamentarianism on principle (IWW revolutionary syndicalism, KAPD). Taking all these circumstances into consideration the Second Congress of the Third Communist International advances the following theses:

The Theses: Communism, the Struggle for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Utilization of Bourgeois Parliaments 

I

1. Parliamentarianism as a state system became a ‘democratic’ form of the rule of the bourgeoisie, which at a certain stage of its development needed a form of popular representation. Although the latter was in reality a weapon of suppression and oppression in the hands of the ruling class, it outwardly appeared to be the organization of the “popular will”, standing above classes. 

2. Parliamentarianism is a definite form of the state. Therefore, it cannot possibly be a form of Communist society, which knows neither classes, nor the class struggle, nor any kind of state power. 

3. Parliament cannot act as a form of proletarian state administration in the transitional period from the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to the dictatorship of the proletariat. At times of acute class struggle, eventually developing into civil war, the proletariat must inevitably build its own state organization as a militant organization which excludes representatives of the former ruling classes. At this stage any pretence about the existence of a ‘popular will’ reflecting the wishes of the entire population is harmful to the proletariat. The parliamentary separation of power is not necessary, is in fact contrary to the interests of the proletariat. The state form of the proletarian dictatorship is the Soviet republic.

4. Bourgeois parliaments are one of the most important apparatuses of the bourgeois state machine and, like the bourgeois state in general, cannot be won over to the side of the proletariat. The task of the proletariat is to shatter the bourgeois state machine, destroying it and its parliamentary institutions, whether republican or constitutional-monarchical. 

5. The same attitude should be taken to the local government institutions of the bourgeoisie which it is theoretically incorrect to differentiate from state organs. Local government institutions are also apparatuses of the bourgeois state mechanism and must be destroyed by the revolutionary proletariat and superseded by local Soviets of workers’ deputies.

6. Consequently, Communism rejects parliamentarianism as the state form of the future society, or as the form of the class dictatorship of the proletariat. It denies the possibility of parliament being won to the proletarian cause on a long-term basis. It sets itself the task of destroying parliamentarianism. It follows from this that bourgeois state institutions can be used only with the object of destroying them. This is the one and only way the question of their utilization can be posed.

II

7. Every class struggle is a political struggle for, in the final analysis, it is for power. Any strike that extends over the whole country begins to threaten the bourgeois state and thus acquires a political character. To attempt to overthrow the bourgeoisie and smash its state is to engage in political struggle. The creation of a proletarian class apparatus for administration, and suppression of bourgeois resistance — whatever form this apparatus takes — involves the conquest of political power. 

8. This means that the question of the political struggle can in no way be reduced to the question of the attitude to be taken towards parliamentarianism. Inasmuch as the proletarian class struggles develop from small and partial encounters into a bid to overthrow the whole capitalist system, this is a general question. 

9. The most important form of proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie and its state power is, first and foremost, mass action, which is organized and directed by the revolutionary mass organizations of the proletariat (unions, parties, Soviets) under the general leadership of a united, disciplined, centralized Communist Party. Civil war is an out and out war and to wage it the proletariat needs its own experienced political officers’ corps and its own strong political general staff, capable of leading all the operations in these areas of struggle. 

10. The mass struggle is a whole network of activities continuously developing, taking increasingly sharper forms which logically culminate in an insurrection against the capitalist state. As the mass struggle develops into civil war the leading party of the proletariat must, as a general rule, secure each and every legal position, using them as auxiliary centres of its revolutionary work and subordinating them to its plan for the overall campaign of mass struggle. 

11. The platform of bourgeois parliament is one such auxiliary centre. The fact that parliament is a bourgeois state institution is no argument at all against participation in the parliamentary struggle. The Communist Party enters this institution not to function within it as an integral part of the parliamentary system, but to take action inside parliament that helps the masses to smash the bourgeois state machine and parliament itself (examples are the activity of Liebknecht in Germany and of the Bolsheviks in the Tsarist Duma, the ‘Democratic Conference’, Kerensky’s pre-parliament, the ‘Constituent Assembly’ and the town dumas and, finally, the action of the Bulgarian Communists). 

12. Parliamentary activity, which consists mainly of disseminating revolutionary ideas, unmasking class enemies from the parliamentary platform, and furthering the ideological cohesion of the masses, who, especially in the backward areas, still respect parliament and harbour democratic illusions, and whose eyes still look at the parliamentary tribune —this activity must be absolutely subordinate to the aims and tasks of the mass struggle outside parliament.

Participation in election campaigns and the utilization of parliament as a platform for revolutionary ideas is of particular significance for the political conquest of those layers of the working class such as the rural working masses who until now have stood aside from political life and the revolutionary movement.

13 Should the Communists receive a majority in the local government institutions, it is their duty to take the following measures: a) form a revolutionary opposition to fight the bourgeois central authority; b) aid the poorer sections of the population in every possible way (economic measures, the organization or attempted organization of armed workers’ militias etc.); c) expose, at every opportunity, the obstacles which the bourgeois state power places in the way of fundamental social change; d) launch a determined campaign to spread revolutionary propaganda, even if it leads to conflict with the state power; e) under certain circumstances, replace the local government bodies with Soviets of workers’ deputies. All Communist activity in the local government institutions must be seen as a part of the general struggle to break up the capitalist system. 

14. The election campaign itself must be conducted not as a drive for the maximum number of parliamentary seats, but as a mobilization of the masses around slogans of proletarian revolution. The election struggle must involve rank-and-file Party members and not the Party leadership alone; it is essential that all mass actions (strikes, demonstrations, movements among the armed forces etc.) occurring at the time are taken up in the campaign and that close contact is maintained with them. The mass proletarian organizations should also be drawn into active work around the election.

15. If conducted in line with these theses and also with the conditions laid down in the special instruction, parliamentary work represents a direct contrast to the dirty political manoeuvring practised by the various social-democratic parties, who enter parliament to support this ‘democratic’ institution or, at best, ‘to win it over’. The Communist Party must stand exclusively for the revolutionary utilization of parliament, in the spirit of Karl Liebknecht, Höglund and the Bolsheviks.

III

16. Anti-parliamentarianism as a principle, as an absolute and categorical rejection of participation in elections or in revolutionary parliamentary work, is therefore a naive and childish position which does not stand up to criticism. Sometimes this attitude expresses a healthy disgust with the manoeuvring of the parliamentarians, but is nevertheless a failure to recognize the possibilities of revolutionary parliamentarianism. This position is frequently connected with a completely incorrect view of the role of the Party—the Communist Party is seen, not as a militant centralizing vanguard of the workers, but as a decentralized system of loosely connected groups.

17. At the same time, a recognition of parliamentary work does not imply absolute acceptance of the need to participate, whatever the circumstances, in all elections and parliamentary sessions. Participation in a particular election or session depends on a whole series of specific conditions. A certain combination of conditions may make withdrawal from parliament essential. The Bolsheviks left the pre-parliament in order to weaken it, undermine it and sharply counterpose to it the St. Petersburg Soviet which was about to take on the leadership of the October revolution. They left the Constituent Assembly on the day of its dissolution, transferring the focal point of political events to the Ill Congress of Soviets. Under other circumstances it may be essential to boycott elections and use direct action to remove the whole bourgeois state apparatus and the bourgeois parliamentary ruling clique. Alternatively, participation in elections, followed by a boycott of parliament, may be necessary etc.

18. So, while accepting as a general rule the need to participate in elections to both national parliaments and the organs of local government, and in the work of these institutions, the Communist Party has to decide each case separately, evaluating the specific conditions of the given moment. A boycott of elections or of parliament, or a withdrawal from parliament, are permissible primarily when conditions are ripe for an immediate move to armed struggle for power. 

19. The comparative unimportance of this question should always be kept in view. Since the focal point of the struggle for state power lies outside parliament the questions of proletarian dictatorship and the mass struggle for its realization are, obviously, immeasurably more important than the question of how to use the parliamentary system.

20. The Communist International therefore emphasizes most strongly that it considers any split or attempt to split the Communist Party solely on this question to be a serious mistake. The Congress also calls on all those who accept the principle of armed struggle for the proletarian dictatorship under the leadership of a centralized Party of the revolutionary proletariat, and who exercise an influence on all the mass organizations of the working class, to strive for the unity of all Communist elements despite possible differences on the question of how to use bourgeois parliaments.