# The World's Trade Union Movement/Chapter 7

LECTURE NO. 7
Politics and Tactics of the Profitern
The Attitude of Revolutionary Workers Toward the League of Nations
IN order clearly to understand the differences between the Profintern and the Amsterdam International we will dwell on the fundamental questions we touched upon when dealing with the latter.
Our attitude toward the Versailles Treaty, the League of Nations, the International Labor Bureau, may be stated in few words: The worst possible. Perhaps this is not enough to explain our attitude, but I think that there can be no question for a revolutionary international of collaborating with the League of Nations or institutions created by it.
Let us remember that Vandervelde, in one of his many speeches, tried to prove that the Versailles Treaty is not so bad after all, because it contains the Thirteenth Paragraph, which defends the rights of labor. Now, with this Thirteenth Paragraph or without it, we consider the Versailles Treaty the greatest robber treaty which human fancy ever created. We do not intend to make it better; instead of that we, from the beginning, adopted the slogan: "Down with the Versailles Treaty, which should be destroyed together with all created by it, as well as the Treaty of Sevres and other similar treaties."
The same holds true of the League of Nations and commissions created by it. One of them is the Commission on Disarmament. We already stated how beautifully the leaders of the Amsterdamers were talking in this Commission. If we are opposed to this Commission it is not because we consider it improper to make speeches in the presence of cabinet ministers: No, there may be such circumstances when it is proper and even necessary to make speeches in such surroundings. The question is only if we shall make wp our speeches and actions in such a way as to help the ministers to fool the laboring masses, or if we speak so as to destroy the illusions of the masses.
Only from this point of view do we consider our every strategic step. As long as the Commission on Disarmament has a collaborative character, as long as the representatives of the bourgeois governments in that Commission clearly are fooling these so-called representatives of the workers, so long for a real revolutionist, there can be no question of participating in all this international chicanery.
The International Labor Bureau, which is, according to the reformists, the "greatest attainment of the working class;" this International Labor Bureau, at the head of which stands Albert Thomas, recently ​expressed its sympathy for Fascism. It is an organization which spends its time in the collection of documents, and even here, we may state, it specializes in falsification.
It is true the International Labor Bureau is attempting to draft proposals for laws, but nobody now takes this organization seriously. Right after the war, the International Labor Bureau had to demonstrate the social liberalism of the victors, distracting the attention of the working masses from the struggle. For the bourgeoisie it was a diversion; for the leaders of the reformist trade union movement it was a "conquest." But as soon as the immediate danger passed, the International Labor Bureau was, in fact, turned into a society of amateurs of social science who are spending their time in useless and timid talk.
If the bourgeois governments of Europe and America are still donating money to the upkeep of this institution, simply because they still expect to make use of this apparatus against the proletariat which is again raising its head—then the workers at least should have nothing in common with this "joint" created by the trust of the victors.
Reparations Problems
We will take up the problem of reparations. Above I have stated the Amsterdam viewpoint of that problem, the crux of which was and is: The Germans must rebuild the destroyed districts, Why the Germans alone? Why should only Belgium and France be reconstructed? Have not Russia, Austria, Bulgaria, Turkey, Germany and Poland also been destroyed? These are the first "impudent" questions which we usually ask the Amsterdamers. But there is still another impudent question.
From the documents already published it is clear that the international bourgeoisie is guilty of the world war, so, logically, if there is going to be compensation, let them all pay. The Hamburg Congress of the Second International adopted a resolution which proves that international imperialism as a whole is guilty of the war. It seems that from this they had to make a logical conclusion that all the imperialists, and not only the Germans, should pay. But, in the end, this very same resolution demands that—"The Germans should pay."
The reformists' logic that only the Germans have to pay, is beyond our comprehension. But this is not the only thing on which we disagree with the Amsterdamers. Let us say that Germany should pay. But who in Germany should be the ones to pay? Germany does not represent a class unit. Who, in particular, should pay in Germany? According to our opinion the German bourgeoisie should pay, but this can be done only when we seize the bourgeoisie by the throat.
​Our stand on the question of reparations can be formulated in the following way: Of course it is necessary to reconstruct all destroyed areas, but such a reconstruction should be done at the expense of the bourgeoisie of all countries, the victors and the conquered. In practice it is quite clear that Germany alone can never compensate all the damages or, as the French say, "for all the broken pots."
When we talk of the great losses in the war, of the hundreds of billions spent in the war, these expenditures are composed of different parts. There are losses purely economic in character: Destroyed homes, factories, shops, fields. Then there come losses on account of destruction of the whole economic organism caused by the war, in exports, imports, etc. Then come losses in human lives. If, to estimate a human life at $50.—and the bourgeois economists are busy now with that—even from this purely commercial point of view, if we consider the ten million murdered men and figure out the loss in dollars, we will see what a gigantic loss it was to the public economy.
In the losses brought about by the war there are those which cannot be replaced. Human lives are lost forever. The loss of working capacity of invalids also cannot be replaced. The used-up guns, military equipment and powder cannot be collected again, etc. But part of the spent capital does remain somewhere. When the state ordered the guns, airplanes, tanks, automobiles, cars, food and guns for soldiers; all that was made by somebody at a profit which remains somewhere.
Where are these hundreds of billions? They are held by the ruling class, they are held by the munition makers and factory owners. The debts of the present governments are only partly external and a great majority of them are on internal loans (Liberty Loans in the U. S. A.). And who furnished the money for those loans? Those who made hundreds of millions.
Thus, if we take up the matter in a practical way, and force the bourgeoisie of the victorious countries to pay, the problem of reconstructing the destroyed areas may easily be solved. It is true it would be necessary to act in a somewhat indelicate way, it would be necessary to annul the mutual debts, to repudiate the internal and the external loans, to bring about a progressive income tax. The reparations question can be settled in such a way only if the proletariat takes over power into its own hands.
The Struggle Against War
One of the most important questions which arose before the workers in the last couple of years is the question of measures and means of fighting against war. We all know very well that there are no such workers or such labor organizations as want war. The question here is not of moral indignation against international slaughter and not of ​protesting resolutions; the question is somewhat different. It is in the problem of the working class leading a fight against war with some expectations of success.
What are the difficulties in the fight against war? I think we will better understand them if we acquaint ourselves with the role which the workers organizations and the workers themselves played in the imperialist war.
First of all, there is no doubt at all that the war itself was made possible only because the working masses, at least in the first period, were for war. The leaders of the labor organizations were for war, and more than that, helped their governments to carry it on. Thus, the struggle against war leads to the struggle against all war ideology.
On the other hand, it is impossible to conduct an anti-war propaganda if we will not at the same time try our best to liberate the workers from all that helps to create the war ideology. It is natural, therefore, that as the first thing in our plan of struggle against war we always put forward the necessity of fighting against all nationalistic superstition, against the idea of "fatherland," and the defense of "our" country.
It is known that the anarchists are also against war. It is true that during the last war a great majority of them were for war. But at any rate they are, in general, against it, not as revolutionists but as pacifists. That means that they are against war because war brings along death and destruction. We are not against every war, but against those conducted in the interest of the bourgeoisie, It is our aim to instill into the minds of the workers this seemingly plain, but in reality profound, difference between nationalist and class war.
It is our aim to prove to the workers that without the creation of a class-militant army, without declaration of decisive war against the bourgeoisie, the workers cannot liberate themselves, they cannot conquer. Thus, the struggle against the whole nationalist ideology, the struggle, against the idea of defending "our" country as such, and the advocacy of the necessity of war for the defense of a socialist country, for our own proletarian state—this is the foundation of our anti-war tactics.
But, on the other hand, in our anti-war agitation, we have to reckon on the connection between the workers and "their" country. Thus, we have repeatedly to express the opinion that to organize a strike of protest in the moment of the declaration of war is utopian, because at that moment the bourgeoisie is armed to the maximum and the working class is disorganized.
Therefore, we see that the question is not that of organizing a strike, at the moment of the declaration of war, but in preparing the working masses before the war against it. As long as the class struggle sharpens itself we will be creating the power which may interfere with the very ​beginning of war and if the war does start may end it in the interest of the working class.
In order to struggle against war it is necessary to conduct a systematic, steady agitational and propagandist work within the army. At the Peace Congress at the Hague, our proposal to conduct anti-military propaganda among the soldiers called forth a sharp protest from the reformist leaders of the Congress.
Such an attitude toward our proposal is quite clear, for the reformists consider the army as a necessary organization for the defense of "the fatherland." Therefore, the disintegration of the army is the disintegration of the defensive and offensive forces of their "fatherland" itself.
The propaganda in the army, open or secret, at the present time plays a great role, because, the bourgeoisie feels less and less assurance of starting a new war and hurling the workers of one country against the workers of another. But in connection with that, in the struggle against war, there appears a new problem. On what, at present, are based the forces of the imperialist countries?
They are based on the exploitation of the colonies, and the colonial armies which already have played some role in the last war and are now becoming of new significance as a powerful tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie for crushing internal "disturbances." Not without reason does the French bourgeois press discuss the question of establishing compulsory military service for the colonies. A part of these colonial troops are at present participating in the French occupation of the Ruhr, and another part of them are within France itself.
As long as these military units are composed of the most backward elements (all the colored soldiers are illiterate) the bourgeoisie is sure that in case of trouble they will be a good tool in its hands.
Out of this, we can see that the question of fighting against war is related to the question of fighting against the imperialist colonial policy. Work within the colonies, the creation within the colonial countries of labor unions, appears as a practical question because the colonial power of the bourgeoisie threatens us with death, giving the bourgeoisie the opportunity in case of necessity to hurl these colored armies into mild military action, and then onto the internal front in case of a civil war.
Within the last few years the question of fighting against war, arose before us—not as a theoretical task, but as a practical one. We had to give an answer to the wide working masses, and to show how to conduct this struggle in an organized way. In connection with this, at the Frankfort Conference and at the Berlin Conference of the Transport Workers, we advocated practical slogans. We advocated the idea of creating at all the border points, Control Committees for the control of all shipments of military equipment from one country into another ​and for connection between the labor organizations of the different countries before the beginning of any military action.
At the time of the past war the struggle of the revolutionary workers against it was difficult because Europe was divided by a line of flame into two parts, and it was very difficult to keep the workers of the two combatant countries informed about the actual situation. In this respect the bourgeois press played a tremendous role: It was in the full sense of the word the "Fourth Estate," as it perfectly performed its function of creating hatred between the working masses, and of smothering class consciousness. We should learn the lessons of this imperialist war and should organize to counteract the bourgeois press.
These are, in a general way, the problems which confronted us in the struggle against war. Of course we never reject such action as the general strike, but we consider it in a practical light. While the reformists at the Hague recited on the theme of declaring a strike in case of war, we said: It's a good idea, but, in order that this strike may be a success, it should be prepared beforehand. And for this purpose it is needful to conduct a struggle against all nationalist superstitions, it is needful to break all coalitions with the bourgeoisie.
It is quite clear that as long as labor organizations are connected with their bourgeoisie, the latter will use these connections in every way possible for the military mobilization of the working class. Thus, the problem of promulgating the general strike should logically be the result of the work of the revolutionary trade unions and the Communist Party, the work aimed at the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
Our Attitude Toward Disarmament
In connection with the question of anti-war propaganda, is the idea of disarmament. Stating the point of view of the Amsterdam International on disarmament, we have already mentioned our point of view on that question. We consider the abstract idea of disarmament as a very injurious one, anti-proletarian and anti-communist; because we are not for the disarming but the arming of the working class. In this respect it is interesting to note the stand of some pacifists.
When we had to conduct a struggle against the right wing of the French Communist Party, we had to pay attention to the fact that even it was infected with pacifist notions. Thus for instance, one of the former leaders of the party expressed his opinion that it would be easier to fight against war if there would be no standing armies—not even a revolutionary one. In this sentence is contained the crux of pacifism.
In reality what is this problem for the working class? Of course, it is not the simple blowing up of all guns, tanks, etc., but in seeing to it ​that all the armament under the control of the bourgeoisie shall be turned over to the hands of the working class. Therefore, the whole ideology of pacifist disarmament is aimed completely against the interests of the working class.
We are categorically opposed, not only to the pacifism of the reformists, but also to the pacifism of the anarchists. In connection with that, at the last session of the Executive Bureau of the Profintern, we had to adopt a decision in connection with the action of the French anarchists. The story of it is as follows: In France there exists a so-called Committee for the Fight against Imperialism and War, in which are participating representatives of the parties, C. G. T. U., and also the anarchist federation.
When the Anglo-Russian dispute began, in the Committee of Action this question was put on the agenda in the sense of mobilizing the French workers for the defense of the Soviet Republic. At this point the anarchists brought in a special resolution in which it was stated: "The working class has no business with any military conflict, it is against the defense of any country, and therefore it should not mix in any commercial squabble between England and Russia. By our mixing in we may set the Russian people against the English, or vice versa."
What is the essence of this small but typical resolution? Here are, firstly, the anti-soviet character of the anarchist declaration. The French anarchists as well as others have an anti-soviet position, because the soviets are a state power, and the anarchists are against all kinds of states. Secondly, they are against every kind of army.
"Let us assume" said I, in a personal discussion with the French anarchists, "that the bad Communist Party does not exist, that the Communist International has been exiled to the devil's islands, or even to Mars; that in France there are only such trade unions of which you alone are the head, and, one fine day, you will overthrow the bourgeoisie. What will you do next? You will agree that the counter-revolution will not at once lay down its arms?"
The anarchists answered, "Of course."
"That means that it will be necessary to fight against them."
"Yes," they agreed, "it will be necessary."
"Are you sure that when the revolution will occur in France, the United States fleet will not bombard your ports?"
"No," they replied, "we are not sure."
"The French bourgeoisie will have its regiments and battalions?"
"Of course."
"That means that you will have to create something to fight against your own and the foreign bourgeoisie? It matters not if you call them ​anarchist groups or companies, you may call them anything you wish, but it will have to be an armed power in order to fight?"
"Yes," they answered, "it will be necessary."
"Will you be able to fight if you will not centralize your apparatus, if you will have no organization, if you. will be unable to weld the proletariat into groups, battalions, etc.?"
When we came to this point the anarchists dismissed all logic and stated—"We are against organized violence, the workers should defend individually their factories and shops, every state is a vampire, every army, including the Red one, is aimed against the working class," etc.
This anarchist ideology which finds sympathy in some circles of the French workers, represents a counter-revolutionary ideology, for it strives to distract the workers from the possibility of revolution. Those labor organizations which do not have as their aim the organization of the proletariat in such a way that it may be able to hold in its hands the seized factories and shops, are aiming at defeat and not at victory.
All this talk of the anarchists is in direct contradiction with the construction and aims of those international organizations which approach the methods of struggle not metaphysically, but are striving, from the given relation of forces, to reach a necessary conclusion of the struggle.
Thus, we are opposed not only to the reformist pacifists, but also to the anarchist ones, because we have never been pacifists: Pacifism is not in the nature of Communism. It has nothing in common with the revolutionary labor movmeent.
Our Struggle Against Fascism
The next question on which the revolutionary labor movement conflicts with the reformists, is the question of struggle against Fascism. What is Fascism? We have already explained it. How the reformists fight against it is also known. How do we propose to fight against Fascism? Of course, the best method, the best medicine, would be the Red Army. This is a very strong but efficient remedy. But to our regret the Red Army, so far, remains on the territory (it is true a very great one) yet of only one country.
We have to find a method of struggle where there is no Red Army, and where Fascism is fighting in order to prevent such an army. If we take the Fascist literature, we will see that Fascism very cleverly conducts its agitation and propaganda for the winning over of the working masses. We have shown above that Fascism is based mainly on the middle classes, but that at the same time is trying to penetrate the working class. Therefore, our first aim should be to drive Fascism out of the labor trenches, that is, to destroy the labor organizations created by Fascism.
​As long as Fascism in its clearest form can be observed in Italy, we should, by working out our methods of struggle against it, consider the methods and technique of the Italian Fascisti. Fascism succeeded by a strong demagogy in organizing large trade unions there. And in our struggle against Fascism the question arose: Is it permissible for revolutionary workers to join Fascist unions and to create therein underground Communist neuclei? Is it permissible in such unions which are, in fact, strike-breaking organizations, which are assisting the bourgeoisie, etc., to create neuclei as a base of our propaganda?
We answered to that: Of course it is permissible. We must fight the enemy with those methods which are dictated by objective conditions. The creation in hostile unions of our neuclei is being carried out methodically, and we have very many cases, as in Italy, where the Fascist unions take steps against the employers and begin to use against them the same methods which they formerly used against the labor organizations.
There can be no objection against such a method of influence upon the Fascist organizations. The evolution of the Fascist organizations depends on the penetration of them by revolutionary elements, which will bring into them that which does not harmonize with the Fascist theory and practice.
But this, of course, is not sufficient. The underground work is calculated for a very long period of time. The other and more rapid method is the open mass struggle against Fascism. Where Fascism has already conquered the question is of overthrowing it, and where it is developing, the question is of not allowing it chance to grow up.
And here, while applying our tactics, we come in conflict with not only the Fascists, but also reformists. In order to make the slogan of the fight against Fascism understood by the masses, it must be made concrete. The laboring mass feels the oppression of Fascism where it has conquered, but where it has not yet conquered, wide circles of labor do not comprehend what Fascism is. Here the question of anti-Fascist propaganda plays a big role in the sense of ideological mobilization of the wide masses.
Workers' Defense Groups
The second phase is the creation of the workers' defense groups. These organizations are purely defensive in aim. To prove to the working masses the necessity of such defensive organization, is much easier than to get them into offensive organizations. On the other hand, as long as Fascism is an aggressive organization, and is striving to seize power where it has not yet conquered, it is natural that the question of self-defense receives more sympathy from the working class.
There are Fascist documents which prove that the Fascists are preparing not only a simple upheaval, but have certain plans; which cities ​to seize, how to conduct movements, whom to send to the other world, which districts are most dangerous, etc. In Germany, where the danger is very great, on the basis of struggle against Fascism we succeeded in creating a big movement for workers' defense groups.
But here we meet with opposition from the reformists. They are against such workers' defense groups, because, on some fine day, these self-defense groups may turn to attack. If the workers are armed, the class logic pushes them ahead, for the old strategic rule says, "The best method of defense is attack."
The reformists understand that out of these self-defense groups there may arise such organs which will lead the struggle against the whole capitalist system. No wonder, therefore, that the first action of the reformist Social-Democratic unions of Germany was aimed against the creation of such groups. But when a mass movement began among the workers, and the Communists succeeded on the basis of creating such groups. to unite workers of different views, the Social-Democracy proclaimed a slogan for the creation of purely Social-Democratic groups.
This was purposely to exclude the Communists because groups in which there are Communists cannot be anti-Communist, but purely Social-Democratic groups may be anti-Communist. The Social-Democrats of Germany figured that they would have to fight with arms in hand against the Communists, and the German Social-Democratic cabinet ministers and government leaders are taking every precaution against the creation of such self-defense groups, especially against such mixed groups.
Method of Struggle Against Fascism
Beside creating the self-defense groups and active agitation and propaganda, we advocated the creation of anti-Fascist Committees of Action. These Committees of Action, according to our opinion, had to embrace the workers of all tendencies, because, war and Fascism are of equal interest to the working class as a whole and to all its political groupings. But this idea of creating Committees of Action, the strong agitation and propaganda, the pressure of the whole international proletariat against Fascism—always meets with opposition from the Social-Democrats.
We now confront the fact that just as Bolshevism calls forth sympathy in the working class of all countries, creating similar organizations for struggle, so does Fascism, in the countries where it conquered, play the role of organizer for international reaction.
It became an international phenomenon which is in complete opposition to Bolshevism. Therefore, the struggle against Fascism should be conducted nut only on a national but on an. international scale. The attention of the working class of all countries, should be concentrated ​on the destruction of Italian Fascism, the same as the attention of the bourgeoisie of all countries is concentrated on the destruction of Bolshevism. It is necessary to state that the bourgeoisie in this respect (as well as in others) is much more conscious than the working class, and sees clearly the international significance of Bolshevism.
The bourgeoisie sees in the Bolsheviks the enemy of the whole capitalist system, and on the other hand, no doubt, they see their friends in the Fascisti and in the Fascist governments.
Therefore, the problem of the international proletariat is to sharpen the struggle against Italian Fascism, and here many methods are possible, on condition, of course, of some kind of unity between all the labor organizations Here is possible a demonstration, and many other actions which could have influence on the Italian government. It could be done in Berlin, Paris, New York, etc. Such demonstrations would play a colossal role in the sense of influencing Fascist policy within Italy itself.
Besides that, we raised the question of anti-Fascist propaganda among the Italian immigrants in the United States. In the United States there are a few million Italians, in France there are over a million Italian workers. Out of these millions of Italian workers it is possible to recruit people who would be useful in the struggle against Fascism in Italy itself, for Fascism is attempting and threatening to create its groups all over the world.
These are the slogans which we advocate in the struggle against Fascism. The fundamental slogan and at the same time the best method against Fascism, is revolution, for where the revolution conquers Fascism is crushed. Fascism is as impossible with us as the revival of monarchism. Therefore, the best means against Fascism is the social revolution.
But the social revolution is such a strong means that not only the bourgeoisie but even the reformists cannot stomach it, and the problem in this sphere is contained in "liberating" the reformist leaders from the masses. It is true that this is not a special problem in the struggle against Fascism, because other problems than Fascism will be solved when this "liberation" is accomplished.
The Struggle for a United Front
We now come to one of the central questions of our differences with the reformist labor movement. This is the question of the United Front. How do we understand the United Front? Instead of theoretical talk on that theme, it is sufficient to bring two international facts which show how the Communists understand the United Front and how they practice it: That is, the international conference at Frankfort and the international Transport Workers conference.
​The international conference at Frankfort was called by the Rhenish Westphalian Convention of Factory and Shop Committees, where the Communists had a major influence, The problem of this conference, which was called by the initiative of the Comintern and Profintern, was to unite on generally accepted programs all the labor organizations of the most important countries.
The Committee on Arrangements sent invitations to the labor parties and labor unions of England, to the Communist Party, to the reformist and revolutionary unions of France, to the Social-Democratic and Communist parties of Belgium and many other organizations. There were invited the Comintern, Profintern, Second and Second-and-a-Half Internationals, the Amsterdam International and the international industrial units. It was an attempt, from a non-partisan organization—the Convention of the Factory and Shop Committees of the districts occupied by France—to drag the reformist organizations into the struggle against war and international reaction and together with them to work out a plan of action.
Right from the start it became apparent that all the reformist internationals and parties were categorically opposed to this conference. They insisted on picturing the United Front as a "dirty maneuver of Moscow," to which they would not agree.
There is a "maneuver" all right, but it is contained in our attempt to make the reformist organizations act instead of talk. We want them to conduct the class struggle along with us on a platform acceptable to them. This is all the "trick" there is in our proposals. But, as the reformists do not want any struggle, it is natural for them to decline our proposals, and as a result all the reformist internationals did not come to the Frankfort conference.
Nevertheless, the workers' representatives from the factories and shops mainly of Germany, came to this conference. Greetings were received from the workers of Glasgow and other English cities. Here the workers parted ways with their leaders, they understood the importance of this conference and expressed their sympathy in the attempt to find a common platform in the struggle against war.
The Frankfort conference in itself is characteristic in that, besides the Communists, there was a Social-Democratic section; also there were the Independents, under the leadership of Ledebour. The Social-Democratic faction at this conference organized itself from factory representatives. These Social-Democrats came to the conference breaking the discipline of their international, their Social-Democratic parties, and their own trade unions.
The Social-Democratic Party of Germany and the trade unions, and those internationals which they supported, were categorically opposed ​to participation in the Frankfort conference, threatening even to take disciplinary action against those who violated that decision. But anyhow, a fraction was organized. It was a small one compared to the other delegates, nevertheless the Communist majority did not force upon the conference such questions which generally are not acceptable to Social-Democratic workers.
We do not see in the resolutions adopted at Frankfort the questions of the proletarian dictatorship, of joining the Comintern—all those questions were not even placed on the agenda. The questions there were the struggle against the occupation of the Ruhr, the struggle against Fascism, etc.
In the resolutions adopted at Frankfort an attempt was made to formulate the idea of a United Front organizationally. The significance of the Frankfort conference was that it promulgated the idea of creating committees for the struggle against Fascism, the creation of Port Committees, the creation of self-defense groups, etc.
This conference has shown that by the United Front we understand the creation of a platform adaptable to both sides aimed against the bourgeoisie. We leave out all which would separate both sides which are trying to come together. The Frankfort conference, which had a great practical significance, has shown, by the resolutions and decisions adopted, our honest wish to create a United Front. It had an influence upon the workers who formerly did not trust the Communists, and who thought that under the idea of the United Front there was hidden some kind of an injurious "soviet trick."
By these resolutions the workers could convince themselves of our honest intentions. The Frankfort conference also had an influence on the working masses because it was the only international conference after the occupation of the Ruhr which adopted a clear and generally acceptable platform of struggle against the occupation of the Ruhr.
What did we see in connection with that question in the resolutions, of the Second, Secand-and-a-Half and Amsterdam Internationals? Protests, in general, and reference of it to the League of Nations. But we adopted a method of struggle against occupation. This had a great influence on the wide masses, and brought to the Communist and revolutionary workers—to the Comintern and Profintern—the sympathy of the wide masses who formerly did not trust our tactics of the United Front.
The second example is more characteristic—the international conference of Transport Workers, At this conference we had to do, not with the representatives of shops and factories, but with the. representatives of centralized organizations. We had representatives of the International Federation of Transport Workers, with whom we conducted official parleys for the creation of a United Front.
​What is most typical in this conference of Transport Workers? It is the complete unity, if not with all representatives of the International Federation, at least with a majority. Again, on what questions did we unite? On the questions of the struggle against Fascism, on the struggle against war and the methods for that struggle. And again, which is a very great gain—on the question of reconstruction of unity in the world's trade union movement.
The resolutions and appeals adopted do not contain anything specifically communist. But they do have a definite program of action, that is, the thing which any reformist international or any reformist organization did not and cannot give. Why were these resolutions filled with definite, concrete things? Because we can talk to the representatives of the Amsterdam International only about concrete questions. Would we ever be able to come to an understanding with them about events and perspectives? We may agree on the struggle against Fascism, on the struggle against capitalism, and as long as there is a will on their side to fight we could adopt definite resolutions. And again the wide masses can see how foolish are the statements of our opponents that the United Front is only a maneuver, that in reality we do not want any United Front and that we ourselves have broken it.
We say to our opponents: If you think it is only demagogy on our part, then make a United Front with us and prove that we are breaking it. But they cannot prove it, because the creation of a United Front with us would break their United Front with the bourgeoisie. And this is the whole essence of the question. It is a question of breaking the coalition with the bourgeoisie, for they do not expect to drag us into any coalition with the bourgeoisie. Therefore, the Amsterdamers are opposed to the United Front.
But even by the left wing the United Front was not adopted without difficulty. In some of the opposition we met in our ranks there was something extraordinary. The labor organizations are not used to the international taking upon itself any initiative on an international scale. Only with the creation of the Comintern and Profintern did they begin to accustom themselves to the idea that the experience of all countries should belong to each and every one. The opposition that we met was centered in the syndicalist organizations of the Latin countries.
It is known that the most active opponents of the United Front were in France, Italy and Spain—even in the Communist parties of those countries. Why was the apposition to the United Front centered in the Latin countries? This has a definite explanation. The Communist parties of the Latin countries have been composed of different elements. We have there few Communist parties which have grown up organically and gradually through the years. In this respect only the Russian ​Communist Party has such long history. All the others have grown out of the Social-Democratic parties after the war, and some of them have absorbed part of the superstitions of the latter.
In the Latin countries the Communist parties absorbed anarcho-syndicalist elements. Thus, in these countries, the Communist parties were composed of two ideological tendencies: On one hand, the Social-Democratic element and, on the other, the anarcho-syndicalists. The origin of these different strata was the cause for the existence, within these parties for a short period, of anarchist leanings. There was something of a "left sickness"—a superficial revolutionism—which is quite common with the anarchist world viewpoint. From the point of view of formal revolutionism, of course, the United Front is impossible, because we have to deal with reformists, to sit with them at one table, etc. A shallow revolutionist cannot comprehend the whole necessity of the United Front, and as a certain part of such element joined the Communist parties in the Latin countries, we met there with opposition.
But there were other motives. It was said that we were too weak to allow ourselves such a maneuver, which demands strength, unity and great discipline. It was claimed that if we will put the Communists together with the reformists the latter may exercise the greater influence upon the former, These parties were afraid of themselves when they talked against the United Front. The same idea found its reflection within the revolutionary trade union movement. But already at the Second Congress of the Profintern (November 1922), all opposition to the United Front had disappeared from our ranks.
The opponents to the United Front saw that the latter is not an empty invention, and that for the period mentioned was a very effective, strategic maneuver for bringing closer unity between the advance guard and the backward mass of the proletarian army. They saw how vital the idea was in reality, and by experience they received proof of the correctness of our general tactics. Thus, at the Second Congress of the Profintern, there were no more opponents of the United Front.
The unity on that question among ourselves is now proven by the international conference of the Transport Workers. At this Conference there were present only the Russian unions, which, however, spoke in the name of the revolutionary unions of all countries. And the revolutionary unions accepted our stand and line of action and adopted all our decisions after they were published. This shows the inner unity, the absence of discord which previously interfered with our struggle. In general, we may say that the United Front has passed the stage of agitation and propaganda and that now it is in the phase of realization, in the organization stage.
In regard to the organizational strengthening of this front, we have shown at the conference of Transport Workers how practically we ​consider it. Although it is true we did not succeed in realizing it in full, There we decided to create an International Committee of Transport Workers for the struggle against war and Fascism, to organize an anti-Fascist fund, port bureaus, control committees, etc., but all that was frustrated by the sabotage of the reformists. The idea of the United Front has been spread among the masses and there are no workers among the reformist organizations who would be opposed to the United Front.
The tactics of the United Front already have given tangible results in almost all countries. As long as the United Front is being created, it is being created for struggle and, at the head of the struggle, stand the more active elements—the followers of the Profintern and Comintern.
The struggle has its logic, and the working masses, when they join in it, cannot stop at a certain place as the reformists want them to. The reformists are trying to break up the movement for the United Front, but every such attempt makes them weaker and makes the revolutionary movement stronger. We succeeded in penetrating the hostile organizations and creating basic points within them for the Profintern and Comintern. It is natural that all tactics which lead to the strengthening of our organization is without doubt correct and virile.
The Profintern and the Russian Revolution
The last question on which we have to dwell in order to finish the characterization of the revolutionary trade union movement, is the attitude towards revolution in general and to the Russian revolution in particular. We gave above an explanation of the stand of the Amsterdam International on that question, and I doubt that it is necessary to review it further.
Our organization, which also embraces millions of non-Communist workers, is, of course, not such a clear-cut organization as the Communist Party. The Communist Party has its definite ideological and programmatic boundaries. We, thanks to the structure of our minorities, do not even know the exact number of our membership in various counties. In the R. I. L. U. are many non-partisans, sympathizers, etc.
It is plain that the tactics of an organization which is composed of different elements cannot be as clear cut as the tactics of organizations which are purely Communist. It is conducting Communist work, but in peculiar, non-partisan surroundings. Our International, although it is non-partisan in character, has for its aims the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is stated in our constitution and in the main resolutions of our Congresses. There can be no doubt on that. From this our attitude toward the Russian revolution is clear.
​How do we, an International which has all kinds of groups and tendencies, consider the Russian revolution? To the Profintern, the Russian revolution is the beginning of the world revolution, as the first step, and one of our main aims is to defend and strengthen the Russian revolution.
We conducted a decisive struggle against the anti-soviet and anti-Communist elements, which have formerly been members of our International and later on organized their own international. These groupings left the Profintern because we did not take an anti-soviet and anti-Communist position. This alone is enough to define the character and physiognomy of the Profintern in regards to the world revolution in general and the Russian revolution in particular.