# The World's Trade Union Movement/Chapter 4

LECTURE NO. 4
The Amsterdam International in Theory and Practice
The Amsterdam International in the Fight Against Fascism
WE will now take up the very important question of Fascism.
What is Fascism? It is the last word of imperialist reaction based on the war and post-war impoverished middle classes of government employes and intellectuals (what Americans call "the white-collar class"), who expect, in the fight against the social revolution, to win back their pre-war welfare.
Fascism is a reaction, the characteristic of which is contained in that it tries to gain foothold if not among all the workers, at least a part of them, in order that together with them it may destroy the organizational centers of the revolution.
First of all, we should remark that Fascism has learned much from the revolution, and as the most outstanding exponent of revolution is Bolshevism, so Fascism borrowed something also from Bolshevism. What did it borrow from Bolshevism? First of all, the forceful methods of struggle; second, the denial of democratic legal forms; thirdly, the rapidity of action; fourthly, the understanding that in order to gain its aim it is necessary to destroy the organizational centers of the enemy-class down to the very foundations. Thus, the methods of Bolshevism and Fascism have some similarity and on this external similarity the reformists are trading by using the parallel of Lenin and Mussolini as representatives of anti-democratic "reaction," as they express it.
What is the chief difference between Bolshevism and Fascism, these two extremes in the social struggle? The difference between them is a social one; that is, on one hand, we have the use of all the revolutionary methods in the struggle against the working class, in order to destroy its power, in order to prevent the social revolution; and, on the other hand, we have the application of revolutionary, forceful methods for the destruction of the resistance of the bourgeoisie, for the fight against the ruling capitalist system in order to destroy it and the system of class society. And it is clear that not the external appearance explains this or another social movement, but its social character. And this absolute social contradiction between Fascism and Bolshevism makes them the most fierce enemies of each other, and places before the working class, which is trying to solve its class problems, the question of methods of struggle against reaction. in general, and of Fascist reaction specifically.
As I have mentioned, the characteristic of Fascism is contained in that on one hand it is trying to base itself, or, better to say, is reflecting ​the disillusion of the middle classes, and, on the other hand, is trying to penetrate the labor organizations. There is one more peculiarity about Fascism: it is the mobilization of active workers from the workers' organizations, and especially from the leaders of the left for action against the labor movement. We should not forget that Mussolini himself, during the year 1914, was a member of the left wing of the Socialist Party, was the editor of Avanti, that, among his cabinet members and comrades there are former leaders of the anarcho-syndicalist movement. It is natural that these elements who came from the school of labor organizations, know the weak points of these organizations and are able to hit these spots very hard.
One Italian writer has called Fascism "the preventative counter-revolution" as a means to avoid a revolution. The Fascist movement which at present is embracing the whole world, especially demonstrated itself in Italy. Fascism is at present a very important social occurrence, which needs very careful study. But this is not in the scope of my discourse. At present we are interested in the question as to the attitude of the Amsterdam International and its component parts toward the Fascist danger.
First of all, we must point out that the Amsterdam International in its different sections did not understand the social significance of Fascism. In those very rare resolutions which they adopted on that question they considered Fascism as a simple reaction. But if Fascism is a simple reaction, then why don't we talk about Fascism in Hungary, where the reaction is not less than in Italy? Why don't we talk about Fascism in France, where we have such representatives of reaction as Poincare?
It is apparent that the character of a Fascist regime demands a more clear description. This reaction is a specific one, and specific methods should be used En the fight against it. Fascism not only tries to base itself on some sections of the working class, but is also trying to create its own Fascist labor organizations, and this does represent a greater danger. In Italy has been created a confederation of Fascist trade unions which is trying to capture the whole labor movement. It is natural, therefore, that the struggle against Fascism, besides the usual methods of struggle against reaction, must bear a special character fitted to this special form of reaction.
The first to raise the alarm of the necessity of the struggle against Fascism were the Comintern and Profintern. Directly after the upsetting which took place in Italy, we approached the Second, the Second-and-a-Half Internationals, and the Amsterdam International with proposals to begin a united fight against Fascism. Our proposals were rejected and the Amsterdam International as well as the international political organizations assumed the responsibility separately to fight against the Fascist reaction. And what did their fight consist of?
​If we will look over all the literature. of the Amsterdam International and its affiliated organizations we will not find even a serious analysis of Fascism. We will find separate articles against Fascist reaction, but we will not find even an attempt tje~concentrate upon that social phenomenon which began to spread all over the world, not even one attempt to concentrate upon a political analysis or to bring about a general line of action against Fascism.
However, there is something more serious than that just mentioned, and it is more peculiar if the Amsterdam International in the question of Fascism did not show any activity and not only gave no instructions to its local organizations about the methods of struggle against Fascism, but the local organizations which were affiliated to it in this question had a very strange position. Here, again, we have to turn to Italy with which we deal every time when we talk about Fascism, as we have to mention Russia when we talk about Bolshevism.
Fascism, after its victory in Italy, at once showed itself in the pressure upon the working class along all lines, beginning with lowering the wages, lengthening the work-day, etc. In order to attain all this the Fascists began to destroy the labor organizations, taking away from them headquarters, destroying the trade unions, capturing the co-operatives, killing the more active leaders.
And here the Fascists figured that the more revolutionists were annihilated, the harder the labor organizations would be hit, so much more difficult would be the future victory of the revolution The revolution cannot be destroyed by destroying the revolutionists, but it can surely be obstructed. We know that after the Paris Commune when the French bourgeoisie in the bloody week between the 20th and 27th of March, 1871, killed 30,000 workers, it reflected on the labor movement of France. The blood letting which took place in the first years of the German revolution, reflected on the tempo of development and on the revolutionary organizations themselves and the revolutionary events of Germany.
The destruction of the more revolutionary elements, of course, cannot save any country from revolution, for the revolution is brought about by objective conditions, and instead of one set of leaders, others will come. But, to make it more difficult for the revolution, to make it more injurious and bloody, this Fascism with its methods may do. This is the main purpose of Fascism, which it is striving for, and from its point of view is attaining.
I have said that the reformists like to align Bolshevism and Fascism, and then to exclaim: "No Fascism, no Bolshevism, but democracy!"
It seemed that with the Fascist coup and the domination of the Fascist fist in Italy not only were the democratic forms of government destroyed but also the labor organizations were razed to the ground ​by the black shirted Fascisti. It seemed that here a specially hostile position against Fascism should have been taken.
But, in reality, the experience of the last year's development of the Italian labor movement shows that the most militant element against Fascism were the Communists, while the reformists had a very strange and ambiguous position in regard to Fascism, beginning with the seeking of a common ground, which would bring about a modus vivendi between the Fascist leaders and the leaders of the trade unions. In this respect the rapprochement between Mussolini and the leaders of the Italian Confederation of Labor is very interesting. Of course, in the fact of rapprochement itself there was nothing wrong. The revolutionary workers of Russia in their time had been talking with the bashibuzuks—Governors General. But what took place before they started those parleys with Mussolini proves that these parleys were not parleys between representatives of different classes sent to find the weak points of the enemy, or in these parleys to defend a certain position. These parleys took place for the sake of adopting common lines of action, of collaboration.
That this was so is proven by the declaration of Mussolini, made in one of his last speeches, that he was always very friendly to the working class, that he was willing to do most everything, and that he would like to have the representatives of the trade unions to participate in the government, that he was ready to give them very important portfolios.
Such declaration it seems should have brought forth a storm of protest from the representatives of the trade unions sitting in parliament, but it was not the case. When vote was taken in the parliament on one of the proposals of Mussolini, D'Aragona who was forced to vote against it, stated: "I wish to explain that I am voting against the government as a member of the Socialist Party, and not as a representative of the Confederation of Labor."
If we will consider the whole situation, the colossal Fascist pressure on the working class, and also the fact that the Confederation of Labor is busy with expelling Communist local unions instead of fighting against Fascism—the character of this flirtation between the Fascists and the reformists will be understood. This political flirtation is not of a purely Italian character. Something similar to it is also noticeable in Germany, where the Social Democracy and the leaders of the trade unions consider Communism as a more dangerous enemy than Fascism. And, at a time when the Communist Party is raising an alarm about the danger of Fascism in Germany, the Social-Democrats are raising the alarm about the danger of Communism. Here they also have the formula: "No Fascism, no Communism, but democracy!" But "democracy" does not in any way oppose Fascism, because the first to recognize the Fascist government were the liberal governments of France, England ​and the United States, while, although the Soviet government has been existing for six years, the latter country has not recognized it.
There are no great differences between Fascism and reformism: Both of them recognize the necessity of saving capitalist relations, and the methods of doing it is a question of secondary importance. But the social basis of both is one and the same. As long as we have in fact a desire to save the capitalist system, all that is against this system, all that undermines this system—and Communism surely does play an "evil" role—is very dangerous and a bitter war against it should be conducted.
But there is one more glaring fact; we notice during the whole history of the German revolution that the leaders of the Social-Democracy are crushing the workers even worse than Mussolini. Out of the entrails of the trade union oragnizations are being selected separate groups crystallized into neuclei which at the moment of very sharp social conflicts, take the side of the Fascists. Thus, in the reformist trade unions there already are certain groups, and special groups of backward workers on which Fascism will be able to rely in its fight against the social revolution, against Communism.
Did the Amsterdam International or its separate sections make any attempt to oppose this tendnecy? Was there any attempt from the Amsterdam International or its sections to crush this embryonic Fascism in its own ranks? Or to crush Fascism outside its ranks? An abstract, formal desire was there but no action could be found in the whole history of the Amsterdam International. It could not be found because the Amsterdam International built its tactics, not on revolution but evolution, not on conflict but on collaboration, not on war of the classes but on peace between the classes.
This is the so-called social philosophy of the Amsterdam International in its entirety.
The Amsterdam International and the Russian Revolution
It is natural that as long as the base of the philosophy of the Amsterdam International lays in its refusal of relations with the revolution, as long as it figures that the working class can only lose by revolution, so long it will work to prevent the revolution. It looks with suspicion every time at those revolutions that are accomplished facts. We notice this stand of the Amsterdam International, in its petty inimical attitude toward the Russian revolution, especially from the moment the Russian revolution took a plainly Bolshevik character. We have to mention, however, that separate parts of the Amsterdam International, at the moment of the February revolution, accepted the upheaval in Russia with great enthusiasm. Yet from the moment the Russian revolution took ​its October character, we notice a very strong inimical attitude to it, to Bolshevism, to Communism, in short to everything connected with the Russian Revolution.
Here we must note a few moments which are very peculiar in attitude of the Amsterdam International toward the Russian revolution. I already said that the Amsterdam International is categorically and sharply against all our conceptions. It is against the dictatorship of the proletariat, for it prefers the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. But every time the Russian revolution was passing through a crisis the Amsterdam International attempted to defend the Russian revolution. Here we have the inner contradiction. This contradiction appeared clearly, especially after the crushing of the Hungarian revolution and at the moment of the Polish offensive against Soviet Russia.
All the organizations which are affiliated with the Amsterdam International, as well as the International itself, could not find words enough to stigmatize the Hungarian revolution which brought into Central Europe the "barbarian, Asiatic, Bolshevik "methods. But when the reaction of Horthy conquered, then the Amsterdam International came out in defense of the Hungarian workers, in defense of the unions than being destroyed. It would seem more logical to support the Hungarian workers at the time they were in power, which is the most proper time for support, and not when tens of thousands have been killed, when hundreds of thousands have been exiled.
Why did the Amsterdam International come out in defense after the destruction of the revolution in Hungary? Because it had to show this face to the workers who had been members of its own unions. It had to show that it is fighting against reaction, that it is defending the workers of other countries. By this stand it almost said the following: "Although the Hungarian workers have been mistaken, we must defend them." Thus, the Amsterdam International was compelled to take the position of defending the workers of this or another country by the pressure from below, by its efforts to keep the masses under its influence, which would leave it if it showed no external phase of activity.
As far as the relations between the Amsterdam International and Soviet Russia are concerned, there are many cases where its leaders, came out openly and sharply against Bolshevik Russia, against the Comintern, etc. Why, then, did the Amsterdamers suddenly remember in the time of the Polish offensive against Soviet Russia, that Soviet Russia is the land of victorious revolution?
The more extreme reformists insisted that Czarism and Bolshevism is one and the same thing, and at the same time they were crying for the saving of the revolution. What is the use of saving it, when there is no revolution, when it is already dead? But this contradiction could be found in the whole of international reformism. This theory of theirs ​proves their political two-facedness, because their conduct does not correspond with their opinions. If you think that Czarism and Bolshevism are one and the same thing, you should call for the overthrow of Bolshevism. This is logical. But such a call is impossible, because these reformist organizations are full of workers who are instinctively in sympathy with Russia. There was an attempt to help Soviet Russia, even to attempt a boycott against Poland, and there was more or less aid in the time of the famine, all on the background of repudiating the revolution.
The whole reformist labor movement finds itself in this contradiction. Especially clearly did it show itself at the Hamburg Congress of the Second and Second-and-a-Half Internationals. There, as a reporter about the situation in Russia, was the Menshevik, Abramovitch, who abroad in order to "represent in all cases the Russian proletariat."
He drafted such a resolution which even the more extreme reformists like the representatives of the British Labor Party, could not stomach. They were discussing that question for a long time and although Abramovitch fell upon the bosom of his reformist friends with tales concerning all the sufferings the Mensheviks went through in Russia, these ungrateful friends refused to fall upon the Bolsheviks, but instead fell upon Abramovitch. How could this be explained in the reformist Congress? It was because the Bolshevik is a revolutionist who has overthrown the bourgeoisie, and therefore the western European workers cannot understand how could the attitude toward Russia be hostile.
We must remark that in this inability to understand there is a great element of patriotism. A reformist cannot understand how one could out against his "fatherland." A good government or a bad one, but it is my government! Looking from the patriotic standpoint he cannot understand how the Russian "Social Revolutionists" war against Russia. The British, German or French reformists may make a bloc with its "black hundreds," but how can one come to an understanding a foreign foe against his own "fatherland?" This a worker with reformist and patriotic sentiments could not understand.
If we will take all that into consideration we will be able to understand why the Menshevik attempt in Hamburg did not meet with sympathy. The resolution of Abramovitch, although revised a couple of times,could not gain the approval of the majority of the delegates, and especially the British voted against it.
Thus we see that the attitude of the Amsterdam International toward the Revolution was always two-faced. At a time of danger to the revolution the Amsterdam International in its appeal would use revolutionary phases to show that the downfall of the revolution would mean reaction not only on the territory of Russia but all over the world.
​This consciousness that the fall of Soviet Russia would be a victory not alone for Russian, but for world reaction, is so strongly in the minds of European and American workers that even the most reactionary leaders cannot work against this class instinct of the wide working masses. From this arises that contradiction which finds its expression in the instability and vacillation of the Amsterdam International in its relations to Soviet Russia. Attack upon Soviet Russia when there is no external danger, enforced aid when there is such danger—thus there are two steps made forward and three backward. These contradictions are a result of the contradictory composition of the Amsterdam International itself, from dim sympathies for us from the masses to definite antagonism to us from the leaders.
The Amsterdam International and the United Front
From all the above we may reach a conclusion as to the attitude of the Amsterdam International and all reformist organizations to the tactics of a United Front. What is the origin of the United Front idea? What is the attitude of the reformist wing of the labor movement to the United Front?
The idea of the United Front appears at the same time when the tide of the revolutionary wave began to ebb. We must admit that in the first period of the October revolution we, the Russian Communists, over-estimated the tempo of the development of the world revolution. It seemed that after our revolution, revolutions would at once follow in other countries. Some expected it in a few weeks, others in months, and in general this expectation of a rapid conclusion, a rapid development of events, surely made an impression on all our tactics.
The tactics of a revolutionary party are decided, not by abstract principles, but by calculating the real situation, and the relations of forces in the struggle. In order to select a line of action for the next period, that is, to map out the strategic plans for action, we have to calculate the surroundings, the relation of forces, the power of resistance of our enemy, the degree of our organization, to calculate the assets of all the fighting forces, to study the social typography of the area. And our area is quite a big one. It takes in the whole world. And only all this taken together decides our line of action. With a rapid development of events our course would be one line of action, with a slower development, a second line, although we have before us one and the same problem.
What are the characteristics of the first two years after the October period. Let us remember the development of events in Germany and those street battles which took place there while there was no powerful Communist Party in existence, not even strong Communist local organizations. The first period was characterized by frontal attacks; ​they were driven back. A new period began and new groupings of forces, marked by apathy in the working masses. The bourgeoisie began to advance against the working class, taking away its elementary gains. In connection with this period, a problem arose before the Comintern of adopting such a line of action as would unite the masses in resistance to the aggression of capital and to stop its advance, and later on, from this form of struggle to take the aggressive.
The situation of the world labor movement in 1921, was somewhat more difficult than in 1919, directly after the end of the war. The spontaneous movement began to slacken. The high waves of the revolution which frightened the bourgeoisie were not strong enough to crush this Colossus. A new period begins, and to this period we had to adapt our tactics, the tactics of the United Front, which has for its purpose under the changed conditions, to unite the wide masses and draw them into the way of revolutionary struggle against the capitalist system.
What is the essence of the United Front? We can explain it in the following way. The Communists are calling upon the non-party workers, the Catholic labor unions, the reformists, in short on all the workers without regard to their political or other affiliation. And we say: "We disagree with you on many fundamental questions. We are for the dictatorship of the proletariat; you are against it. We are for revolution; you are for class collaboration, etc. But we do agree with you that it is necessary to save the eight-hour day, that it is necessary to bring up wages to the increasing cost of living, that it is necessary to retain the social gains we have already obtained. Let us lead all the workers into the struggle according to your program, and not ours. Let us create together a United Front according to your own program. Our program does not end with merely economic demands and the demand of the fight against the danger of war. Our program is much wider than that. The crux of it is the overthrow of capitalism. You do not agree with that; let us lay aside all those points upon which we differ; let us leave only those which unite us and on these points let us wage a relentless struggle." These are the causes, character and essence of the United Front.
The first question arising is:—Is this a correct line of action for a revolutionary Communist party? And, also, for revolutionary trade unions? Can we, in order to gain a United Front, put aside all that which divides us from the reformists? Can we allow such a strategic maneuvre?
Firstly, a United Front is possible only if it is a purely labor front, and this it is that differentiates us fundamentally from the reformists, who are for a United Front of Labor with capital. Thus, the first distinction of our United Front is its purely labor character, independently ​of the political views or beliefs of separate workers or groups. Further, the purpose of this United Front is to fight against the bourgeoisie. By that you can see that the United Front is aimed at our class enemy. And again the idea of the United Front sharply conflicts with the theory and practice of the reformists, for with them the question is one of collaboration between the classes.
These are the boundaries of the United Front for us Communists which we cannot overstep. And because the United Front should be a purely labor front, because its aims are against the employers, against the bourgeoisie, therefore it should conduct a struggle and not discuss collaboration. That was the reason why the reformist organizations were all the time against the United Front. This is the crux of their position.
They look upon the United Front as a new invention of the Bolsheviks, the slogan of a United Front they understand as a new maneuvre of "Moscow," and under the name "Moscow" they understood everything, the Profintern, Comintern, the whole of Soviet Russia, and all that has anything to do with the Russian revolution.
That is the way the reformists understood our proposals for a United Front although in reality they are opposed to it because it holds a clear proposition for the class struggle, for breaking up all coalition with the bourgeoisie, because they are the ardent defenders of such a coalition.
As long as a United Front would be created with the Communists—and in this respect they had a clear understanding—the possibility of a united front with the bourgeoisie had to disappear. There is no third way out of it and therefore it is plain why the Amsterdam International was so opposed to the idea of a United Front, and quite naturally attempts were made to defame this idea instead of realizing it.
In connection with the United Front there were many gestures made by the Amsterdam and the Second internationals. You will remember the Berlin conference of the three internationals where the Comintern, the Second and the Second-and-a-Half Internationals were represented. Here we had no united front but only talk; on one hand, on the question of the evil of Bolshevism; and, on the other, on the evil of reformism. This meeting of the representatives of the three executive committees, was only a trial of strength, but it could not give any concrete results. This failure however, could not stop the Profintern and Comintern from attempting to create a United Front and, whenever a proper moment would arise in the labor movement, we would call upon the Internationals, the Amsterdam and the others, proposing coordinated action. Usually we would get no answer at all, or get one in the that "We will not fall for the provocations and maneuvres of Moscow."
The Ruhr Conflict
At the Hague Peace Congress where the delegates of the Russian trade unions represented not only the Russian unions, but also the Comintern and Profintern, we openly proposed the creation of a United Front. This proposal brought forth a sharp rejection from the reformists. They wanted no United Front with us and therefore they did not like my statement, that—"We will create a United Front, with you if you wish; without you if you will stand aside; or against you if you oppose it."
If the reformists had wanted a United Front with us they would not have invited the bourgeois pacifists to the Hague. They understand that we will make no United Front with the bourgeoisie and therefore the composition was of such character that the possibility of the United Front was excluded.
The Hague Congress, as it is known, ended on the 18th of December 1922, and the 10th of January 1923, the French army occupied the Ruhr. From this moment there began a serious turn among the masses toward a United Front.
What brought about this turn? The occupation of the Ruhr demonstrated clearly the bankruptcy of the Amsterdam International. Three weeks after the Amsterdamers promised to start a strike, they not only failed to start one, but they were unable to adopt a more or less decent resolution of protest against the occupation, because the Germans were pulling one way and the Belgians and French the other. The Amsterdam International was unable to give a clear slogan in connection with that affair. The only thing it was able to say in its resolution was the necessity of turning over the Ruhr conflict to the League of Nations and to make a soft protest against the violent action of the French and Belgian military.
Some of the leaders of the Belgian trade unions and the Labor Party stated at their convention and in parliament that there was no other way out of the reparations problem except the occupation of the Ruhr. The reformists opposing the Belgian social patriots tried to prove that the occupation of the Ruhr. was not profitable, that better, more profitable methods should be used as pressure against Germany, such as, for instance, a request from the League of Nations or other international organization.
In answer to that the Belgian king's pet reformists stated that it was "not true that the occupation is not profitable: we received from Germany four and one-half billions francs and the occupations cost us only seven hundred million." Imagine yourself an International whose members are discussing the question if this operation is profitable or not, which three weeks after a promise to call a strike proposes to ​apply to the League of Nations, an International unable to call for a demonstration in connection with the occupation of the Ruhr, and you will understand the disillusionment which began in the masses connected with the Amsterdam International and the despair among the German workers created by this weakness in the political activity of this international.
This bankruptcy of the Amsterdam International was a shock for the masses which showed them the necessity for seeking something new. And what could they find? One could go along the lines of the reformists continuing to flirt with the bourgeois pacifists, or could join in a United Front with the Communists. There is no third way out of it.
The occupation of the Ruhr has so clearly illustrated the inner division of the Amsterdam International itself, has thrown a bright light upon the inner national-imperialist contradictions which were tearing apart this so-called International, that a desire for a United Front began spontaneously among the masses, a desire to create at any cost a United Front with those who are willing to fight. And who were fighting at that time? Who were making any real proposals to fight against the advancing bourgeoisie? Only the followers of the Profintern and Comintern. There was nothing else on the political horizon. There was a saying: "All roads lead to Rome." Now it has been changed to: "All roads lead to Moscow." And every time when the working class gets into a trap and can find no escape through methods of the reformists, at such moments it begins to seek the road to "Moscow," that is, a road of common struggle with Communists against the bourgeoisie.
The Berlin Conference of Transport Workers and the Sabotage of the United Front by the Amsterdam International
Already at the Frankfort Conference we had followers in the representatives of the Factory Committees, we even had a Social-Democratic group which came out with the statement demanding from its leaders the creation of a United Front with the Communists. The latter events in Germany have proven the absolute necessity of such a front. The United Front was being created by the workers themselves, without and in spite of the reformist and Social-Democratic leaders.
The Amsterdam International sharply and clearly refused a United Front. But not all industrial internationals could refuse a United Front. The first break that was made in the ranks of the Amsterdam International was in the International Federation of Transport Workers. You read, of course, about the international conference of transport workers held in Berlin at the end of May 1923. What brought about this conference? How could a part of the Amsterdam Inter​national and one of its secretaries, Fimmen, come to the conclusion of the necessity of having the United Front with the Russian Communists and the followers of the Profintern when it was prohibited by the Amsterdam International?
The roots of it are found in the Ruhr occupation. There are moments when a rap over the head with a club brings about clear thinking. And the Ruhr occupation was such a rap over the head, which made a breach in the minds of the wide laboring masses and later on found a reflection in the heads of their leaders.
On the agenda of the Conference we inserted a few questions: The struggle against Fascism, the creation of the United Front in the trade union movement, and the fight against war. We agreed upon a manifesto, resolutions, etc. The belief that there was no other way out, in the minds of the representatives of the International Federation of Transport Workers, aided in bringing about this agreement.
We adopted very elementary decisions: The fight against war by creating control committees in all seaports, in important railway centers, etc. But all that was adopted by the Conference of the International Transport Workers met a sharp and decided opposition from the Amsterdam International which is built upon the principles of representation by national organizations and is politically supported by vertical units (transport workers, metal workers, etc.). Now imagine, we were pulling one of these supports from under it, and this support of the transport workers plays a special role, as we can fight against war only when the transport workers will join the fight.
When this immense scandal in the "respectable family" of Amsterdam occurred, when a part of the International made a bloc with the Communists without approval of the other parts, it seemed that they had now to come out in the open and state: "We do not recognize the United Front." It seemed that they could do nothing else. However the conditions of the Amsterdam International after the occupation of the Ruhr were far from its condition before occupation. They met, discussed at length the question, and finally adopted a resolution in which it was stated that the Amsterdam International is not bound by the decisions of the Transport Workers Conference.
But we never considered binding them. Why, then, did they come out with a statement that they "are not bound by it," instead of coming out with a protest? It was because they were afraid to come out as opponents of the United Front, which would be to lose their influence over their own ranks. For this reason they did not come out against the United Front with a frontal attack, but began a strategic detour, stating that they are for a United Front, but they are not bound by decisions adopted by someone else.
​At the same time, they stated their willingness to talk over matters with the Russian unions. To this the Executive Committee of the Russian trade unions answered that they were ready to talk with the Amsterdam International and even to propose to talk seriously on the question of a United Front, the struggle against Fascism, etc. They received an answer over the signature of Oudegeest (they have their left and right hand and when it is necessary to sign something especially reformistic in character, it is signed by Oudegeest) in which he said that the proposal of the Executive Committee of the Russian Unions would be discussed by the Amsterdam International at the beginning of August and that they wished to know if the Russian unions are speaking in their own name or in the name of the Red International of Labor Unions. As to the conference of the Transport Workers, it is further stated, the International Federation of Trade Unions does not take any responsibility for its decisions.
The Central Committee of the Russian Unions in its letter to the Amsterdamers mentioned the conference of the transport workers and stated its willingness to come to such agreements in other industries as well. But the pressure of the reformists was so great that they succeeded in the recent (August) council of the International Transport Workers in passing a resolution which states that on one hand the United Front is a good thing, but that on the other hand it is necessary that this question shall be discussed by the Amsterdam International. It is natural that when one says, "On the one hand—yet on the other," there is neither head nor tail to it. In this case it happens that although the decisions adopted by the Berlin Conference are recognized in principle by the Federation of Transport Workers, in practice they have not been applied at all.
We decided, for instance, to create international committees of action, but the reformists went no further than "in principle." It is known that Henry the Fourth had a wish that every peasant should have a chicken for dinner, but out of this wish "in principle," the French peasant not only had no chicken but not even black bread. Such principles don't mean anything.
Anyhow, the Amsterdamers succeeded in stopping that which we began. It is quite possible that we, the representatives of the Russian trade unions will have to meet again with the representatives of the Amsterdam International, because the pressure from below for a United Front is so great that the reformists willy-nilly shall be forced to come to agreement with us.
We may consider as a strong pressure the decision of the last Belgian trade union convention which ended the first day of August. At this Convention a resolution was adopted which instructs the central bureau to defend the United Front in the Amsterdam International. If ​the idea of a United Front found a place in the heads of the Belgian trade union leaders it was not their fault. It is clear that even there where the sabotage of the United Front was being used successfully—and in this respect we have to give the Belgian labor leaders their due—even there it was impossible to get rid of it with resolutions.
It was necessary to give the laboring masses a straight answer to the question: Do you want to fight together with the Communists against reaction? In this decision of the Convention of the Belgian trade unions is reflected the ideological and organizational crisis of the Amsterdam International, separate parts of which under pressure of the workers, were forced to act in contradiction to the general line of their international unit.
To show another example: Parallel with the Transport Workers Conference in Berlin, between the 23rd and 25th of May the Congress of the Second and Second-and-a-Half Internationals met at Hamburg. At that Congress, six hundred delegates were present; at the same time at our Transport Workers Conference in Berlin only nine. They had a "Congress." We had only a little conference. At the Congress was present one secretary of the Amsterdam International, Oudegeest. At our conference another of its secretaries, Fimmen. At Hamburg, Oudegeest was talking against the Communists and the United Front, while at Berlin, Fimmen agreed to a United Front with us. It is easy to imagine the political basis, the political strength of an organization in which one secretary is fraternizing with the Communists, and another with their enemies.
From this fact alone it is possible to make a conclusion on the weakness of the Amsterdam International and of its lack of any possibility of action. This is not an international of action, not an international which organizes the proletariat for struggle but, so to speak, an international for the exchange of information, an international for periodical writing of resolutions. But there are many such international units: there are international sport societies, international rabbit raisers—O, there are many international associations! But there is nothing here which would describe the Amsterdam International in the sense of uniting a class, or in the sense of united tactics, for coordinate action in all countries.
All this proves the maximum disintegration of the whole reformist movement, and also that reformism in its essence—as long as it sticks to the bourgeoisie—is unable to create an international
Industrial Internationals
The characterization of the whole right wing of the trade union movement would not be final if we would not touch the existing industrial ​internationals which are politically connected with the Amsterdam International. There are twenty-nine such internationals. All of them were created in the end of the nineteenth century, some earlier and others later. For the sake of common struggle they unite workers of one trade, of one industry. This is, in fact, the idea of every international, but as a matter of fact in the many years of their existence they had not led a very noticeable political life. They are mostly organs for general information, and to be exact, even that information was not well organized.
With the beginning of the war and the fall of the socialist and trade union internationals which followed, these internationals, in fact, ceased to be such. We have noted that at the beginning of war all international organizations, including the workers’ internationals, were split into military-diplomatic coalitions, according to the place where this international happened to be. The socialist international had its headquarters in Brussels and the keys to it were in the hands of Vandervelde; the trade union international had its headquarters in Berlin, at the head of it stood Legien, who was pulling for the Central Empires. The industrial unions were partly in Germany, partly in England and partly in other countries. And, according to the place they were situated, they were inclined to this or that military coalition. In fact, the industrial unions ceased to exist during the war. They began to revive after the war when the Amsterdam International was born.
What do these post-war industrial units represent? If we will take them along vertical lines we will see that they numbered about twenty million members which is in a general way equivalent to the number of these same workers united by the Amsterdam International along horizontal lines, The largest industrial international is the international of the metal workers, It unites almost 3,000,000 members. Then comes the miners' international with 2,500,000, the laborers with 2,300,000, the internationals of agricultural and textile workers numbering about 1,500,000 each. Less than a million members are in the wood workers, building trades and clerks.
These are the biggest international units, but we have also industrial internationals which can hardly be called international organizations, as for instance, the international of barbers, which has 12,000 members; fur workers with 13,000 members; pottery workers with 13,000 members, etc. It is sufficient to state that there are a few internationals even in one industry; the painters have their international, the building trade workers theirs, etc.
We have lithographers, pressmen, book-binders organized separately. In short, by detailed examination of these internationals we will see a purely formal unity, the specific gravity of which is characterized by such number of members as twelve and fifteen thousand all over the ​world. This is characteristic of the reformist trade union movement, which has a vast number of separate organizations, any one of which is interested in its own economy and which strives to remain in the borders of its craft.
In order to show how widely split is the trade union movement of the present day, we will give the following examples: In the American Federation of Labor there are over one hundred units, and in the whole German Federation of Trade Unions there are fifty-four centralized unions. There are over fifty such unions in France; over a hundred are in England, although England is now going through a period of amalgamation. It is sufficient to mention that in Russia we have only twenty-two industrial unions.
These industrial internationals are characterized not only by their separatism—this is only a half of the evil. There are a few internationals, as for instance the metal workers, the mine workers, the laborers, the transport workers, which could play a big role in the class struggle (by "laborers" we understand also those who in many countries are part of the factory workers handling chemicals). But if we will take the last few years of the existence of these unions, we will see that they played no role even in their own industries, so much less in international policies or at a time of great international conflicts.
In a few examples we will endeavor to show the tactics of these internationals and the tactics of the revolutionary unions. All of course remember the famous great strike of the British miners at the beginning of 1921. This strike which embraced over a million miners of England, was of great significance to the whole British labor movement, and especially to the miners' movement. What is characteristic of this strike, is, first, its isolation within the country.
The Triple Alliance, the agreement between the Miners, Transport Workers and Railwaymen for common action broke up with this strike. The Transport Workers and Railwaymen did not support the Miners and the latter were isolated on a national and international scale, because no organization of mine workers did anything to support their British comrades.
How did the mine owners of England succeed in smashing this movement? Thanks to the German, American, and Belgian coal! Thus, the members of one and the same international gave the British mine owners the opportunity to crush this colossal and powerful movement, to drive back this revolutionarily-inclined federation of mine workers.
However, the British mine workers who were defeated took their revenge during the strike of the American coal miners. In 1922, 500,000 American coal miners were striking, This time the British workers ​did nothing to aid the American workers, and the coal dug by the British miners helped crush the American miners. We have such relations among the miners of all Europe. The German, Belgian, and French coal miners made no move during the strike of the British miners to help them for the simple reason that the British coal miners were indifferent during the strikes of the other European miners.
The characteristic of the Mine Workers' International is the national tactics of its separate parts. An international which in the sharpest moments of struggle in any one country remains aside from the struggle, which not only does not aid the fighting workers of its own industry but looks on indifferently while other parts of it in other countries are in fact scabbing, is not an international.
Similar tactics—if it may be called tactics—we have also in the International of Metal Workers. During the lockout of the metal workers in England none of the sections affiliated with this international did anything to help the British metal workers. The only international in which a striving to do something on an international scale is noticed, is the Transport Workers International. It made an attempt to boycott Hungary, to boycott Poland at the time of its attack on Soviet Russia, etc. It is true they did not accomplish much but at least we could notice a striving to become an international in fact.
What is the attitude of these internationals toward the Amsterdam International? Not being connected with it organizationally, they accept its political leadership; they say, "We are international by industry and the Amsterdam International is a general class organization, dealing with general questions." This is the way the reformists explained their position at the convention of the chemists just ended.
There was an attempt from separate internationals to formulate a general line of action upon more militant questions. The Metal Workers, Mine Workers, and Transport Workers attempted to create something like the Triple Alliance for international action, figuring that if these three unions could come to an understanding it will be possible to bring greater pressure on the international labor movement. They had a few conferences. They created a special committee on this question, passed a few resolutions against war, and again there was a lack of action by these three internationals.
For the last few months, especially after the occupation of the Ruhr, these three internationals which were supposed to do something, did nothing at all. For the simple reason that they also were being torn asunder by nationalist contradictions as well as the Amsterdam International.
​It is natural that such a lack of action by the Amsterdam and the industrial internationals called forth a desire in the masses to create such an organization as would not be an "oleomargerine" substitute for an international, but a real militant one.