“Leave your colorful butterflies and lay your axe to the edifice of the capitalist economic order.”
— Eugen Leviné

‎
The entire controversy on “Left-Wing Communism” is today well known in the International Communist Movement, with its historical background tracing all the way back to the German Revolution and Lenin’s “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder. In Germany, this manifested in the struggle between the Bolshevised KPD with Moscow’s backing and the Council Communist KAPD, which was formed after expulsion of the majority left-wing oppositionists at the Heidelberg Congress of the KPD due to Paul Levi’s demagogic manoeuvres.

Several of us are well acquainted with this and it is present in several history books too. However, historical accounts often fail to track the history of the KPD and the Council Communists before the Heidelberg Party Congress i.e. when the Party and most of its membership were still Council Communist. A lot of party members would however abandon their Council Communist positions under the pressure from right-wing leaders and the Comintern. Anyways, to partially overcome this neglect of the Council Communism of the early KPD, I’ve translated the following collection which is a selection of interventions by various individuals, who adhered to Council Communism at that point of time, at the Founding Congress of the KPD against participation in elections. Out of them, some would join the KAPD whereas some would abandon their positions and remain with the KPD.

Otto Rühle

I oppose Levi’s proposal that we participate in the elections to the National Assembly. Only a few days ago, I was of the opinion that the question of voter participation was completely out of the question for us. To my great surprise, I was disabused of this by the article in the Roten Fahne1 , and today we experienced the unreasonable demand that we participate in the elections to the National Assembly. Yesterday and today, we freed ourselves from the burden we had created with the Gotha resolution, and now we are immediately re-entering the territory of opportunistic compromise politics. We have experienced enough with compromises and opportunism. I urgently warn you not to tread on this ground and decisively reject participation in the elections to the National Assembly. This leaves us completely suspended in the air. It is self-evident that the establishment of the National Assembly will bring about a major strangulation of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils. Müller from the party executive and Fräßdorf from Dresden have already argued that the establishment of the National Assembly spells the end of the councils. We must continue to incite the lively politics of the street; we must not lull the movement back to sleep by giving workers a ballot paper.

What should we tell people? Vote us into the National Assembly so we can hollow it out from within, blow it up, sabotage it, expose it to the laughter of the world. People simply don’t understand that. When people say we must give women and young people the opportunity to vote… I don’t know how to make it clear to them that they should vote us in. We can no longer view parliamentarism as our instrument. We are not voting for a National Assembly. You will have the opportunity to vote when it comes to electing representatives from your workplaces to the councils. We have demanded this universal, equal, and secret suffrage from civil society. Once we are in power, we will want something else, create something else. After all, we are about to seize power. Once we have power, we will not allow the National Assembly to wrest it away from us again. In any case, the situation is such that if two or three of us enter the National Assembly, they won’t have the platform they expected. The Reichstag was no longer our platform either. The petty questions disappeared, they were no longer allowed through, the shouts were no longer recorded; the Reichstag had long since ceased to be our platform. Comrade Levi said that we needed this platform. We now have other platforms. The street is the greatest platform we have won, and we will never let it go again, even if we are shot at. We are not even comparing it with this ridiculous, miserable parliamentary platform we have in the National Assembly, where perhaps one of our speakers manages to speak. The newspapers will carry two or three lines of his speech; the only paper that will report the speech will be Die Rote Fahne (The Red Flag) . And Die Rote Fahne can publish dozens and hundreds of its wonderful articles. This serves the cause in a completely different way than a parliamentary speech.

Comrade Levi says the question is serious, and the fate of our movement is at stake. If the fate of our movement depends on our participation in the elections, then our movement must be in a pitiful state. If the National Assembly is moved to Krähwinkel, then it will judge itself. Comrade Levi says it won’t judge itself. Now, comrades, let the National Assembly be moved to Schilda, then we will have a different government here in Berlin, and then our task will be to first try to overthrow it. And if that fails, then let it go to Schilda. Then we will establish ourselves as a new government here in Berlin. We still have 14 days. In these 14 days, we can go to the most remote areas and make it clear to the comrades what we are all about. The National Assembly may be the organ of the bourgeoisie. Our organ looks different. We will create our organ either after the National Assembly or, if it is not possible to overthrow it, at the same time as the National Assembly. Now we will be able to take up the fight in all forms.

I urgently appeal to you not to succumb to this opportunistic policy. I’m not saying it’s a deliberate opportunist policy. But in its effect, it will be opportunistic. For the broad masses of rural residents and small-town dwellers, it amounts to a policy of compromise. I urgently appeal to you not to succumb to it; pursue the straightforward path of a completely consistent policy that raises one single demand: a council system!

• 1This refers to the leading article in the Rote Fahne , No. 38 of 23 December 1918, The Elections to the National Assembly , written by Rosa Luxemburg .

Friedrich Gelwitzki

You have heard all the statements presented to us on the question of the National Assembly. I would like to ask you to join Comrade Rühle. I ask you to adopt the following resolution, which a number of Berlin district assemblies have already adopted. I then submit a second resolution.1

These two resolutions were adopted unanimously in my district, despite all the machinations used to lead the workers down a different path. Perhaps another comrade would be serving as a delegate at this conference if I hadn’t represented a position that coincides with the position expressed in the resolutions. The unfortunate speech delivered by Comrade Levi today will leave no impression on the memory of that morning, which we comrades present will never forget. In view of this, I consider the afternoon, when one draws a conclusion, disgraceful that this question still has to be discussed for hours. If the matter is as the comrades in the Reich have stated, there is no need for further major discussions; the verdict has been made. If one presents arguments based on the lofty vantage point of the ideas that sustain us, this vantage point is available to us everywhere. We don’t need it on the platform of the National Assembly; we have it on every street corner, on every balcony; we have platforms everywhere to address the masses and to summon the masses. We consider participation in the National Assembly to be confusing in the current situation. The clarity of purpose with which we have won over the masses so far must not be shaken by the machinations of any central function. It is gratifying that we can declare today that we have freed ourselves from the authoritarianism of our leaders. We used every authoritative means to lead the masses down the wrong path, but they refused to obey. It is claimed that if we do not participate in the elections, the votes that might have benefited us will go to the independents. This argument is as worm-eaten as anything. It is nothing more than vote-catching. Do we want to win votes? No, we don’t want votes, we want fighters. Ten men on the street are worth more than a thousand votes in the election.

Then, at the same time, we have the duty to consider: What do we do in return? As a replacement, we do this: All power to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils! This slogan that was given to us, with which we first won the masses, behind which the revolutionary elements of Greater Berlin are lining up, this slogan we must see to by January 19th. Until the day of the National Assembly, we have the damned duty and obligation to work with utmost energy, to spread this idea to the masses, not just in the factories. Our greatest duty lies in going to the barracks, in making clear the difference: here, the Council Assembly, there, the National Assembly. The Council Assembly is the government of the world proletariat, and the National Assembly is the government of the counter-revolution. We must show this to the workers clearly and unambiguously. Then we will be successful if we enter into intensive activity until January 19th. This is the logical tactic that we must implement without fail. The greatest harm lies in our participation in the elections—this must be clear to everyone—that is a blurring of the fundamental principle. This is truly a vague policy. I warn you that the bourgeois newspapers, along with the Scheidemanns, would descend upon us. A loud outcry would resonate throughout the international world if we did not make our position clear. It has even been suggested that those comrades who might participate would risk receiving a medal. We must educate and organize actions to transfer all power to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils. We must not forget that the workers’ and soldiers’ councils, as they are currently composed, are not the representation we need to anchor the proletarian revolution. We must expand these councils so that they actually anchor the proletariat firmly and securely. That is not the case at the moment. When one attended the conference of the councils and saw how most of the soldiers’ representatives were officers, how officers and sergeants were elected at the Busch Circus, and how Liebknecht was not allowed to speak, this vital element of the social revolution must be fundamentally restructured so that we can be sure that proletarian Germany is properly represented. That is not the case now.

They say we must let development take its course. Who is development? Aren’t we development? We are the executive organs who must drive development forward. We have a duty to ensure, by all means, that what we want comes to fruition: all power to the workers’ and soldiers’ councils. I ask you to adopt our resolution unanimously. Do not participate in the National Assembly elections. When the time comes, and we cannot prevent the elections, we must be in a position to create a parliament through our own actions, because we do not want the destruction of the revolution, but its thoroughgoing continuation.

• 1The two resolutions are not included in the manuscript. The Berliner Tageblatt and Handels-Zeitung , No. 666 of December 31, 1918, states the following about the content of the resolutions: ” Gelwitzki (Berlin) read two resolutions from District Associations 14 and 15, Berlin Wedding and Reinickendorf. The members of these associations declare themselves against participation in the National Assembly. Rather, they demand that all means of power be used to oppose this use. Furthermore, they call on all revolutionary workers to ensure that all power is firmly anchored in the workers’ and soldiers’ councils. They want to win power on the streets, if necessary, with bloodshed, to achieve world revolution.” The bourgeois daily newspaper Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger , No. 661 of December 31, 1918, also mentions that Gelwitzki read two resolutions from District Associations 14 and 15, Berlin-Wedding and Reinickendorf. However, these districts are not mentioned in the report of the Mandate Review Commission.

Eugen Leviné

Intervention by Eugen Leviné at the Founding Party Congress of the KPD on the agenda of “The National Assembly”. He here situates himself on the left-wing of the party, i.e. among the Council Communists, and argues against participation in elections. And not only this but the KAPD would argue in “KAZ, 1926, No. 44” that “Eugen Leviné fought against the trade unions, for their destruction, and for Unions [AAU], thus representing theoretically and practically the standpoint of the KAPD, which at that time was also the standpoint of the Spartacus League and the KPD that emerged from it”.

Comrades! I would like to begin with the words of the previous speaker. The question of participation in the elections to the National Assembly is not a matter of principle. But it is an important question. The fact is that some opponents of voter participation are putting forward arguments that are not valid and can therefore easily be refuted by those who favor voter participation, who consider participation in the elections to be a necessity. Our comrades who support voter participation are accused of wanting to participate in parliamentary activities again. Of course, there is no question of that, and I would like to exclude this argument and cite others that speak against participation.

Parliamentarism is understood as participation in parliament, which excludes action outside of parliament, shifting the focus of the political struggle to parliament. Of course, the comrades who advocate voter participation did not have this intention; they did not want to paralyze the masses outside the National Assembly. If we reject this objection, we are left with no less weighty objections to voter participation.

To make a decision, we must ask ourselves: What tasks do we face in the immediate future, and is participation in the National Assembly compatible with them? It’s not a question of sending a speaker to a hostile debate meeting; we haven’t been polemicizing against Comrade Levi for that reason. We didn’t want to waste our energy. The question is: Are the tasks of the immediate future compatible with participation in the elections? We know that in both cases, whether we participate or not, a small minority of the working masses will stand behind us. If we participate, it will be only a few, and even our headquarters has sensed this, declaring that we are not interested in changing the majority. We only want to bring in a few seasoned comrades. But I also believe that in the case of a boycott, only a few will follow us. What is the connection? It’s not because the Spartacus League didn’t have the strength to recruit enough followers, or to postpone its organization so long. It’s because the revolution is so early, which doesn’t yet allow the masses to join us.

It is self-evident that all the thousands of women and girls who are voting for the first time now will not cast their votes for us. It is self-evident that they will not heed our call for a boycott either. But it is our task to influence the situation so that the time between this and the next period, when we have the majority, is as short as possible. We must show through propaganda, agitation, and political experience that there is no other way out of the complete anarchy of the current situation than struggles for immediate socialization. This is our strength in the fight against the dependent and the independent: that we stand on the foundation of immediate socialization. And the more unemployment grows, the more we can point to this means. But this is the experience we gained through the Russian Revolution: that political principles cannot be acquired and acquired through decrees and declarations; they require practical instruction. In political life, too, there is the system of work schools, where one learns through participation. These are the councils. We have no other way out now in the political and economic situation than to use all our power for the councils. We are told that the councils are dying. Those branches are dying that were cut from foreign trees and poorly grafted on: those officer and coalition councils, born of agreements between the leaders of the dependents and independents. These are foreign hothouse plants. But those other councils stand strong, and no storm will uproot them. Our task is to build the organization from below, to train the works councils, precisely because the local councils now lead a shadowy existence, having allowed themselves to be pushed into a corner by the Ebert-Haase government. We must focus our attention on preparing the works councils for the economic struggle, on enlisting every worker to participate. Any participation in an election is incompatible with this consolidation of mass organization from below. If the masses were as sophisticated as many of the comrades wish, they would try to be active in the factory councils instead of taking a short stroll to cast their ballot. It is precisely the comrades at the headquarters who say that the masses are not yet sufficiently enlightened, which speaks against voter turnout. We could perhaps explain to the comrades here how one can be against the National Assembly and for participation in the elections. But these comrades will no longer be able to teach their colleagues in the factories the same thing. It is quite true that the masses think primitively, and to the extent that they are not politically enlightened, they may have a train of thought that is not strictly logical.that it is absolutely not necessary to be against the National Assembly and therefore against the elections.

But the masses think this way. The moment they are told to participate in the elections, their strict opposition to the National Assembly is blurred, and the focus shifts from the task of expanding the works councils to the hope of being able to achieve something in the National Assembly. It is therefore a great danger to use this slogan. Much has been said about the fact that all the agitational response we thought we would find through our participation in the elections is now disappearing. From one side, we are shown the Russian example, from the other side, we are told…1 What is the situation then? The Bolshevik Party has never harbored illusions about the National Assembly. But it says that the Russian population had to go through with participation. Why? Because for decades, the other socialist parties had propagated the National Assembly as a kind of sanctuary among the Russian population, which had actually triggered the belief among the broadest sections of the population that the National Assembly could do something. Therefore, they were bound to be disappointed. But what is the situation here? Here, the National Assembly is just as alien to the feelings of most sections of the population as the council system. However, the elites of the proletariat have experienced the idea of ​​the National Assembly. For them, the council system does not mean a break with cherished ideas.

The situation is this, whether we like it or not: The masses will go to the National Assembly, the masses will elect our opponents, the bourgeois, the dependents, and the independents. How can we, through our position toward the National Assembly, ensure that the masses will later return to us? We are now facing the possibility of an Ebert-Scheidemann dictatorship in the near future. The most difficult struggles lie ahead of us. It depends on whether these struggles are successful or whether we will have to return to illegal work. In any case, we must try to oppose the National Assembly, the coalition of the bourgeoisie with the majority socialists, with real power. This real power is the expansion of the council system. Do you think the real power of the bourgeoisie will be broken if you unleash machine guns against it? It won’t be broken if you put a few comrades in it either, but only through the struggle from outside, through the struggle in the workplace and on the streets. We must organize these struggles. If we succeed, then the problem will not become relevant at all; then the National Assembly will disappear. But if we fail, and are defeated first, something else will happen: The masses will experience disappointment, and they will say: The Spartacist people and the Communists were right when they told us: Don’t go into the National Assembly! Build your councils! Organize all your power outside, prepare for battle!

Comrade Duncker tells us that we are like children who ripen buds prematurely. I believe it is the force of events that, like a drizzle in spring, causes the buds to suddenly open. But if one wants to compare someone to children, it is those who, instead of now setting about nurturing and caring for the blossom of the revolution, the council system, and making it grow, are chasing colorful butterflies, the elections to the National Assembly. Or, I would say more accurately, the council system, the revolution, is not just a blossom; it is actually as if one had to walk in a jungle, and our comrades put down their axes and want to chase their butterflies. So I say to them, leave your colorful butterflies and lay your axe to the edifice of the capitalist economic order.

• 1This sentence is incomplete in the manuscript.

Minna Naumann

We in Dresden are absolutely opposed to participating in the elections for the National Assembly. The speech by Comrade Luxemburg and the other speakers who spoke in favor of it couldn’t convince me otherwise today. We are putting ourselves in direct contradiction when we have to tell the masses that the National Assembly is the most pathetic and shameful thing ever created, yet we still want to participate in order to be more effective in agitation. That is not true. This will be even less possible from the rostrum of the National Assembly than Comrades Liebknecht and Rühle were able to in the Reichstag. Our best comrades are far too valuable for that, and it is a needless waste of energy. If the National Assembly is formed, it won’t be long before the conditions will be stronger again and work for themselves to disperse the National Assembly. It will be considerably easier for us to explain to the masses that we do not want to be smeared with such filth. I therefore ask all of you to use your strength everywhere to oppose participation and to accept Comrade Rühle’s proposal.

Fritz Tetens

Comrades! We must be clear about the effects that will be produced if we participate in the elections to the National Assembly. Yesterday, we constituted ourselves as a new party. If we decide today to participate in the National Assembly, we will be carrying a stillborn party out of the conference. We must not fall into the same mistakes for which we are fighting the Independents. We must clearly state our goals to the class-conscious proletariat, otherwise we will confuse our own supporters and lose their trust. The National Assembly under the Ebert-Scheidemann protectorate will only drive the state cart further into the ground, just as Kerensky did in Russia, and we must not participate in that. The National Assembly, the playground of the bourgeoisie, will not be able to banish the existing chaos or the food shortage. The chaos will become even greater; the masses, slapped in the face by the National Assembly and currently still unthinking, will come to us because we have pursued a clear-cut policy. Economic anarchy will allow the proletarian revolution to mature of its own accord. Then our time will have come to take the reins, and we must then seek to win the trust of the broadest masses through the immediate implementation of our program. Above all, we must not forget that if we participate in the elections, which would also mean a waste of our energy, we will lose all sympathy among our revolutionary comrades abroad. On the other hand, if we also clearly unfurl our banner, we will strengthen them in their struggle for world revolution. For us, there is only one way to educate the masses for political action, only one goal for which we must devote all our energies: the Soviet Republic.

Emil Schubert

This morning’s remarks, both by Comrade Liebknecht and Comrade Radek, have proven that in revolutionary times, one must establish clear guidelines and slogans. The entire question of the National Assembly this afternoon was refuted this morning by Comrade Liebknecht. This morning, he took the position that socialism is a question of power, which must not be represented in any parliament, but in the streets and on the battlefields. At the Berlin General Assembly of the Union,1 Comrade Luxemburg , just like Liebknecht, took a completely different stance on the Russian Revolution than today. She said there, “The last one to leave gets bitten by the dogs,” as the saying goes. Here with the Russian comrades, it was different; they were the first to attempt to implement communism and abolish parliamentarism. For this reason, we begin where the Russian comrades left off. Comrade Levi says: If we do not participate in the National Assembly elections, we will paralyze our movement. This is a standpoint that a revolutionary cannot and must not take if he does not want to come into conflict with the masses, who believe that power must lie in the hands of the workers. There can be only one thing: the realization of socialism through the power of the workers’ councils.

If we declare ourselves in favor of parliamentarization today, at this stage of the revolution, those who are still wavering would see that no clarification has taken place between Spartacus and the Independents because we are using the traditional ballot paper. Let them vote for Ebert and Scheidemann, that cannot deter us from our actions. It is certain that if we work in this direction, we will face a difficult field, but because we are convinced that conditions are developing in our favor, there is no other solution for us than the slogan: Down with parliamentarism, and no pacts. The Charlottenburg comrades are of the opinion that we will switch over to the Spartacus League if we do not reach the conclusion today that the Spartacus League wants the same thing as the USP. You theorists can interpret it differently, but the instinct of the masses does not grasp it so quickly. The duty of the workers’ and factory councils is to steer the leaders, who want to divert us from our path, onto the right path.

• 1 This refers to the general assembly of the USPD of Greater Berlin on December 15, 1918.

Ernst Rieger

Although I have been an opponent of parliamentarism for many years, I hesitated for a while as to whether it would be wise for us to withdraw from the National Assembly and renounce its use for the sake of the revolution. I initially hesitated because I told myself that some of the comrades would certainly not understand that here, where we are not directly dealing with a permanent legislative body, but with a special-purpose parliament whose sole task is to erect the structure of the future society, it might not be understood if we could not be present at this meeting of master carpenters. However, I have abandoned this hesitation by considering that if we participate in the elections to the National Assembly, this decidedly counter-revolutionary disgrace against the instrument of power on which we are willing to build all our strength and future—this counterpart to the council system—then only confusion would be created. A certain intellectual concession to the idea of ​​the National Assembly…1

We must free ourselves from the phrase “democracy” in its traditional, poisonous sense. It is not democracy if we have equal voting rights, but otherwise no equal social rights. Equal rights to enjoyment are far more important than anything else. We must break with this fraud, with parliamentarism in the bourgeois sense, outright. The majority in the workers’ councils should become the most visible expression of true democracy. “Useless talk is a fool’s delight,” said Wilhelm Liebknecht. We must establish contact with the masses outside and force our way in, like the deputation of soldiers’ councils in Berlin. We must reject the representative system under all circumstances. We must have the courage to confess the reactionary purposes the National Assembly is intended to serve, namely, to render the workers’ councils illusory. Therefore, there can be no pacts with any bourgeois institutions. So remain consistent! Don’t be dissuaded, and reject any participation in elections!

• 1This sentence is incomplete in the manuscript.

Rosi Wolfstein

I readily admit that the arguments of the speakers who spoke out against participation were misguided and went far beyond the intended purpose. The comrades have also in some cases accused us, who are against participation, of something that is not true. Comrade Luxemburg, when she says that the radicals who are in favor of rejecting the National Assembly elections are making things easy for themselves, does us an injustice. We did not decide to do it out of laziness, but because, if we were to reckon with the possibility at all that our representatives should go, we see it as a much easier skirmish than what we want to fight out. We are of the opinion that what will not be evident in the number of votes on January 19th will be summoned beforehand. Liebknecht says that positive work must be done. We have already issued the slogan: through economic uprising, the current government must be nipped in the bud, so that it either withdraws the deadline or is overthrown, and that events accelerate this, as we all wish. We do not intend to remain passive or complacent. We know full well that our tactics are far more intensive than participating in the elections to the National Assembly. The question is being asked what should be done. The comrades in Düsseldorf expressed this in a resolution that coincides with Comrade Rühle’s resolution. Furthermore, we intend to convene our own assembly to address this issue. We must go to the opposing assemblies, to the USP and the Scheidemanns, and there we will force our voices to be heard in the discussion and explain what the National Assembly is all about—that it is really nothing more than the gathering of the counter-revolution. We will refuse to send anyone there to legalize this groundwork. The comrades at the Central Committee also tried to portray participation in the elections as lower than it actually is. I know that the USP has already caused confusion with its mixed attitude toward the National Assembly, first postponing it for years and then participating on January 19th. We, who have spoken out against this parliamentarism, cannot now also make a small zigzag by saying we want to go anyway. The article of December 23rd caused enormous resentment among the workers.1

Then I would like to cite two more reasons for opposing the National Assembly: 1. Through the wartime elections and the workers’ councils, we have seen that the radical, determined elements have an aversion to any election in which the bourgeoisie can still vote. The fact that our representatives receive so few votes does not mean that we have so few supporters. The disappointment among the enlightened workers about what a National Assembly has brought to the Russian comrades and about the worthlessness of a parliament is so great that we cannot get them to participate in the election work, whereas we can now have them for the work of mobilizing the economic forces, not to fight in parliament through mass strikes, but to blow it up with such arguments. A second argument is that by joining forces with the communists, who are absolutely against participation in elections, we immediately come into conflict with them. We do not want to subject our young association to such a test. (Loud applaus

Max Levien

What do you all want here? You all want to rein in the bourgeoisie. And I believe that there is no comrade who wishes that more fervently than Comrade Rosa Luxemburg. What does it mean to rein in the bourgeoisie? It means to lead the revolution to victory. That is not so simple. Revolutions do not march on a ruler. They describe zigzags, dictated by the various power relations. But the first commandment for a revolutionary class is to remain constantly on the offensive. We are talking about opportunism. It is purely a question of tactics. Comrade Liebknecht said that there is a possibility that the development will take a longer period. He spoke in favor of the National Assembly, but that would mean declaring bankruptcy of faith in the current contradictions between the warring classes. If we want to count on a longer period, then we must resort to a parliament organized along revolutionary lines. Of course, even that wouldn’t be opportunism. Opportunism relies on quantity, on the number of votes. The suggestion has been made that only two delegates be elected: Comrade Luxemburg and Comrade Liebknecht. They’re too good for that in my opinion. We need them on the streets. Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg demonstrated how brilliantly our comrades can work outside of parliament during the short period of the revolution. It has been said of Comrade Liebknecht that he had the opportunity there to discredit the Reichstag in the Reichstag itself. He forgot to mention that we didn’t have freedom of assembly back then. The same was true of the first Duma. At present, we have a boiling cauldron of proletarian movement, and we certainly don’t want to add fuel to this boiling cauldron by electing a National Assembly and hindering the masses’ ability to act.

In Bavaria, elections for a Bavarian National Assembly will soon be announced. The people of Braunschweig have already voted, much to my regret. It is impossible to vote for the National Assembly without simultaneously voting for the Bavarian National Assembly. We are diverting the colossal movement, which is finding economic expression in the Ruhr region and in Silesia, into an area of ​​perpetual voting. We are thereby giving the workers the illusion of a personality cult, as if the leaders in the National Assembly could do anything. I would demand the dissolution of the National Assembly. Anything else is cooperation. When we submit motions, we consider them legitimate to create the constitution of the Reich. I would advise you to refrain from voting for the National Assembly. It is not possible to go to the National Assembly and at the same time resolve the revolutionary differences and wait until you are thrown out.

It should also be noted that the Council Communists emerged victorious at this Congress and the proposal to boycott elections was adopted by 62 votes to 23.

Libcom