The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1927-09-12

naming traces among the delegates
of the idea of the effectiveness of
such slogan as boycott the war"
1t came to question of general
strike. You may remember that in
Lenin's instructions he gave certain
direction which was interpreted by
many to mean that the general strike
was not to be employed as a weapon
against war. However, very detailed
explanation, carefully given by our
Russian comrades, made clear to all
delegates, l hope, that no such
mechanical understanding can be
made What Lenin warned against
was the Herve conception Of the gen
eral strike as a method-the method
as it was in the hands of Gustav
Herve, the French leader, in the pre-
war days. Lenin warned that to
teach workers that they can merely
drop their tools and be inactive on
the day that war is declared, that the
teaching that they will stop war
without any preparations to put
through a general strike to the only
logical conclusion of a general strike,
meant deception and pacifist illu-
sions for the workers. But the ques-
ton of the general strike is not
confined to any such narrow basis
and the British general strike which
came in such terrifically dramatic
form before the eyes Of the workers
of the world has compelled the most
careful investigation of all the sig
nificance and possibilities of the gen.
eral strike as a weapon of the work
ing class in relation to war and war
danger. It is almost inevitable that
there will be a general strike ques-
ton before the British working class
in war situation in the near future.
This makes it necessary for US to
examine the last detail and for us
to understand what Lenin meant when
he pointed out that the general
Strike in Moscow in 1905, which led
to the insurrection in Moscow a short
time after and which was factor in
the war situation,-that that sort of
tactics is something different from
the pacificist conception of passing
on responsibility for war situation
by merely saying "fold your arms,
have general strike on the day OF
the declaration of war;" and to let
it go at that. Comrades, the in
evitable development of successful
general strike in a war situation is
something that is not looked for by
reformists. Reformists can speak of
stopping war with a general strike
and then not do anything by way of
preparation. They can betray the
workers that way as completely as
Gustave Herve did It is no easy
matter to understand the fine diff
ference b ftween grandiloquent
/ phrases about a general strike and
actual preparations in an organiza-
tional fashion for the application of
the tactics OF the general strike to
I be carried through to its only possible
/ successful development.
I<<sdn regard to the demand for various
types of Organization of military, the
question OF calling for a citizens
militia, etc We make a distinction
between such countries as, for in
stance, Syria, Egypt, Persia, where
it is still possible, and still revolu-
tionary to cali for a universal militia.
In countries of capitalist develop
ment, on the other hand, where there
has already disappeared all pos
sibility of a universal militia" being
anything but a counter revolutionary
instrument, it is necessary to call for
the proletarian organization such as
sve have in Germany in the red front
Fighters, and situations where it is
necessary to call for the arming OF
the working class. Comrades,
think that the decisions which were
reached are clear and effective in
tstructions for all of the Communist
\ Parties of the world. y
Comrades, we must remember thai
the Comintern says that the Ameri
can party and every other Communist
Party in the world has made the mis-
take Of Understanding the wal
danger. The Comintern was not able
to make one single exception, because
every Communist Party had under
estimated the danger Of war. We
were told, comrades, to rub the sleeI
from our eyes and to realize that the
war danger is thing of today ant
not an abstraction of the future. The