 |
Prometheus Research Series 1 |
August 1988 |
 |
 |
A
Note on the Translation |
 |
In the introduction to his bibliography, The Communist
International and Its Front Organizations, Witold S. Sworakowski succinctly
notes the problems faced by anyone seeking the documentary record of the
Communist International:
The user of Comintern publications must be aware of the
fact that the same item when published in Russian, English, German, French,
or any other language, although seemingly identical with its counterparts,
is not necessarily so in its content.... In most cases it is practically
impossible to establish which item is in the original language and which
is a translation. Texts of the same item, e.g., of the same speech, report,
or resolution, may differ in editions in different languages.1
Sworakowski further explains why this should be so:
The congresses and plenums of the Executive Committee of
the Communist International were multinational gatherings of people with
at least forty languages as their native tongues. After some attempts
at restrictions in the beginning, delegates were permitted to use at the
meetings any language they chose. Their speeches were translated into
Russian, German, French, and English, or digests in these languages were
read to the congresses immediately following the speech in another language.
Whether a speech was translated verbatim or digested to longer or shorter
versions depended upon the importance of the speaker. Only by realizing
these time-consuming translating and digesting procedures does it become
understandable why some congresses lasted as long as forty-five days.2
In the case of Guidelines on the Organizational Structure
of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of Their Work,
however, we have been very lucky since it is clear the original draft
was written in German. Lenins letters to Kuusinen and Koenen, including
his suggestions and addenda for the draft, were in German, indicating
that Lenin worked with a German rather than a Russian text.3
Moreover, Zinovievs remarks in the discussion at the 22nd session,
referring to the German wording worked out by our internationally
motley crew (Appendix A: Report on the Organization Question,
by Wilhelm Koenen), clearly indicate that the Congress worked with the
German text.
We have translated from the German text of the Theses and
Resolutions of the Third Congress published by the Communist Internationals
publishing house in Hamburg in 1921. 4
This version conforms in all details to the amendments mentioned in Koenens
Reports and includes point 45, which was omitted (apparently inadvertently)
from the German text published in Moscow.5 This Hamburg-published version also corrects various
grammatical errors of the Moscow-published German text. The published
Russian-language versions of the Organizational Resolution suffer from
misplaced and omitted text, garbling the meaning of the Resolution in
places.6 French-language versions of the
Organizational Resolution have followed the German, not the Russian, as
regards text sequence and numbering.7
The English translations of the Organizational Resolution
published in the 1920s garble the text in places. Moreover these translations
omit many of the revisions adopted by the Congress at its final session.8 Unfortunately, a new English version published in
1980 as part of a collection of Comintern documents is based on the Russian
text and suffers from all its textual omissions, made worse by the ignorant
interpolations and carelessness of the translators.9
The English translation we publish here is, to our knowledge, the first
complete one ever based on the final German text. We have followed the
German text as regards paragraph breaks, word emphasis and the capitalization
or non-capitalization of communist party.
Appendices A and B are translated from the German-language
stenographic report of the Congress.10
Since Koenen spoke in German, this can be presumed to be more accurate
than the Russian stenographic report.11
We have compared the German to the Russian report and found only one substantive
difference: a speech by the French delegate Vaillant-Couturier is omitted
from the German report of the discussion on the Organizational Resolution
at the 24th session of the Congress. We have translated this speech from
the Russian and included it in our translation in brackets. As for the
rest of our translation, we have faithfully rendered certain terminological
and stylistic inconsistencies unfortunately endemic to what appears to
be an unedited text, footnoting only the most glaring of these. In the
interest of readability we have, however, added a number of paragraph
breaks to the translation in Appendix A and we have provided a few minimal
explanatory footnotes in both Appendices.
In two cases it was impossible to convey succinctly in English
the full range of meaning of the German text. The Resolution and Appendices
contain frequent references to Betriebsvertrauensleute, which can
mean both shop stewards and equally people in charge of the (partys)
work in the plants (something roughly akin to the French responsable).
Obviously both meanings can be present simultaneously. It is clear from
Koenens Report to the 22nd session of the Congress (Appendix A)
that for the most part it is the loosely organized network of syndicalist
workers usually referred to as the Revolutionäre Obleute or Vertrauensmänner
which is meant. Betriebsvertrauensleute is therefore mostly translated
as shop stewards though in a few places party cadres
with authority in the plants more closely conveys the meaning of
the German text.
The other difficulty was the German Aktion. Koenen
uses the word frequently in his 10 July Report to the Congress, and he
clearly means it to reverberate favorably with the 1921 Märzaktion
(March Action). As used here the German term Aktion can encompass
the single-event sense of the English word action, as well
as convey a sense of an ongoing series of activities better rendered in
English by the word campaign. We have chosen whichever word
fits better in context, unfortunately sometimes losing Koenens clear
resonance with the March Action. In this regard it is significant
that, in contrast to Koenens 10 July Report, the text of the final
Resolution often uses the French-derived Kampagne instead of the
German Aktion.
We have not translated the German words Ausschuß
and Beirat—essentially synonyms for committee
used in Section VII of the Resolution—because to do so would obscure
the meaning of the text. At the time of the Third Congress these terms
had concrete meaning in the German workers movement: the leading committee
of the VKPD was the Zentralausschuß, based on regional representation;
in the USPD a Beirat, also regionally representative, made major
decisions in conjunction with a Zentralkomitee. To our knowledge
these bodies have had no analog in the English-speaking workers movement
and their use in the Resolution underlines its attempt to explain the
organizational forms developed by the Bolsheviks in terms of the relevant
practice in other countries, particularly Germany.
* * *
The translations, notes and introduction presented here in
Prometheus Research Series 1 were prepared centrally through the
efforts of the following individuals: Marianne Clemens, Jon Lawrence,
Fred Purdy, Emily P. Turnbull and Vladimir Zelinski.
|