1935 practical experiences united front o. pitanitsky 1935

7/29/2019 1935 Practical Experiences United Front O. PItanitsky 1935

1/74

PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES

OF THE STRUGGLEOF THE COMMUNISTS

FOR THEUNITED FRONT

By O. PIATNITSKY

THE COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL

INTERNATIONAL PRESS CORRESPONDENCE

1935


2/74

Scanned / Transcribed byThe Socialist Truth In Cyprus

Web: http//www.KibristaSosyalistGercek.nethttp://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/intro.htm

E-mail: [email protected]


3/74

2Practical Experiences of the Struggle of the Communists

for the United Front by O. Piatnitsky

Source: The Communist International, International PressCorrespondence, Part 1, No. 14, Volume 12/2, pp 9558,Part 2, Number 15, Vol. 12/2, pp 35558.

Transcribed by:Socialist Truth in CyprusLondon Bureaux, July 2003


4/74

3CONTENTS

Practical Experiences of the Struggle of theCommunists for the United Front by O. Piatnitsky ............ 4

The United Front on an International Scale ................... 5The United Front In Different Countries........................ 19

FRANCE. ....................................................................... 19SPAIN............................................................................. 33AUSTRIA ....................................................................... 38ITALY.............................................................................. 42GERMANY .................................................................... 43GREAT BRITAIN .......................................................... 49U.S.A. ............................................................................. 52POLAND ........................................................................ 55

The United Front in Countries where the SocialDemocrats are in the Government. ............................... 58

Once More about the United Front on anInternational Scale............................................................ 60The United Front in the Revolutionary MassOrganisations.................................................................... 61The United Front and Trade Union Unity ..................... 63What Are the Results of the Operation of theUnited Front Tactics?....................................................... 68Mistakes in Operating the United Front and the

Struggle against Them .................................................... 70


5/74

4

Practical Experiences of theStruggle of the Communists

for the United Frontby O. Piatnitsky

BEFORE the war, the question of the united front was

never raised in the working class movement of theBIGGEST capitalist countries of Western Europe. This isto be explained by the fact that at that time there were notwo parallel political parties drawing their support from theproletariat, nor parallel trade union organisations in oneand the same country. Prior to and during the war theworking class movement of the West European countrieswere dominated by the Social-Democratic Parties and

reformist trade unions which had the Support of themajority of the working class.

In Tsarist Russia, before the war, the united front waspractised, although the term united front itself was notused. The united front was actually put into operation inthe enterprises, factories and workshops, where the

revolutionary parties which then existed carried on theirwork, or tried to. It was put into operation ill the factories,although not as the result of agreements made betweenthe organisations which existed in the enterprises.Usually, the workers of various political currents took partin all the strikes that took place. But when big events tookplace, the united front was operated not spontaneouslybut by means of definite agreements made between the

different parties. I will give only a few examples. In


6/74

5Moscow, on December 7, 1905, the call issued by the

Soviet of workers deputies for a general strike anduprising was signed by the Bolshevik, Menshevik, andSocialist-Revolutionary Party Committees. The samething took place in a somewhat different form inLeningrad, then St. Petersburg. 'The ExecutiveCommittee of the Soviet contained representatives of allthe then existing revolutionary parties, and all the mostimportant questions dealt with at the sessions of the

Executive Committee and of its presiding council werediscussed in the presence of representatives of theseparties. Thus, many of these decisions were, at bottom,adopted on a united front basis.

In several towns in 1905, the Bolsheviks, issued the callfor demonstrations and strikes together with the

Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, the Bund andother parties which had influence of one kind or anotherover the workers.

The United Front on an International Scale

The united front tactics as a method of struggle in thecapitalist countries began to be adopted by the

Comintern and its Sections after the war, (1) when a splittook place in the ranks of the working class inconsequence of the treachery of Social Democracy andthe reformist trade unions took the side of the bourgeoisieduring the war and supported the bourgeoisie after thewar; (2) when Communist Parties and red trade" unionswere formed in a hole number of countries alongside the

Social Democratic Parties and reformist trade unions; (3)when after the revolutionary storms had abated (the


7/74

6revolutions in Germany and Austria, the huge strikes in

France, England and America, the unrest in the armies,the risings in the colonies, etc., after the war) thebourgeoisie took the offensive and began to deprive theworking class of their political rights and the economicimprovements they had won by revolution.

Many communists in a number of countries (Italy, France,Spain, Germany and Austria) did not understand these

united front tactics: they declared that the revolutionaryworkers had left the Social-Democratic Parties and thereformist trade unions because the Social DemocraticParties and the leaders of the reformist trade unions byentering into agreements with the bourgeoisie, hadbetrayed the interests of the working class; theserevolutionary workers joined the Communist Parties and

the revolutionary trade unions; how then, was theirargument, can we now form a united front with traitors tothe cause of the working class?

These Communists only saw before them the leaders,and not the masses of workers; they did not notice howthe Social Democratic Parties and the reformist tradeunions had made advances to the Communist

International and the Red Trade Union Internationalduring the stormy year of the first round of wars andrevolution under the pressure of their members and themasses of workers who were against the policy of theleaders, the policy of conciliation with the bourgeoisie,and were in favour of the revolutionary methods ofstruggle employed by the Russian workers, led by theBolsheviks. It is common knowledge that the SecondCongress of the Comintern and the first Congress of the


8/74

7Profintern, were attended by representatives of Social-

Democratic Parties and of reformist trade unions whowere driven by their members to ask to be accepted intothe Comintern and the Profintern -Frossard, Crispin,Dittman, Serrati, Darragona, Pestania, and others. (Inorder to safeguard itself against this influx of non-revolutionary parties, the Comintern was forced at thattime to adopt its twenty-one points for acceptance intothe Comintern.) These Communists did not understand

that under the influence and pressure of the workers andmembers of the Social-Democratic Parties and reformisttrade unions, the latter (and even a section of theirleaders) would have been compelled to undertake jointunited front action with the Communists and the Redtrade unions, had these been successful in explainingclearly, stubbornly, on a wide scale and in a popular

manner the full importance and necessity of the unitedfront.

Even before the Communist International issued itsmanifesto on the united front -January, 1922- the UnitedGerman Communist Party (which originated out thefusion of the Spartacus League and the Leftindependents), on the instructions of the Comintern,

addressed an Open Letter on January 8, 1921, to all thethen existing trade unions, namely, the German NationalOrganisation of Trade Unions, the Association of FreeClerks Union, the General Labour Alliance, the FreeLabour Alliance (syndicalists), the Social-DemocraticParty of Germany, the Independent Social-DemocraticParty of Germany, and the Communist labour Party ofGermany, calling upon them to participate in joint struggle


9/74

8against the growing reaction and the capitalist offensive

against the working class.

In this Open Letter it was proposed that (1) a jointeconomic struggle be undertaken to raise wages,benefits and pensions; (2) a struggle be undertaken tosecure that measures be adopted to reduce the cost ofliving by distributing cheap foodstuffs to workers andclerks and that a census be taken of all living

apartments with the right to cut down surplus living spaceand to evict; (3) that control be instituted through factorycommittees over the stores of raw materials, coal andfertilisers and over the production of foodstuffs andarticles of prime necessity; (4) a joint struggle beundertaken to bring about the immediate dissolution anddisarmament of the bourgeois defence organisations, and

the establishment of proletarian self-defenceorganisations, as well as the declaration of a universalpolitical amnesty, and the abolition of the prohibition ofstrikes; (5) that a struggle be developed for theimmediate establishment of trade and diplomatic relationwith Soviet Russia.

The attitude of all the parties and trade-union

organisations to whom this Open Letter was addressedwas a negative one, but the workers meetings held inseveral towns of Germany approved of it.

The draft theses on tactics presented to the ThirdCongress of the Comintern contained the followingstatement regarding this first united front appeal:German Communism, thanks to the tactics of theCommunist International (revolutionary work in the trade


10/74

9unions, the OPEN LETTER, etc.), (my italics-O.P.) has

been converted from the political current which it wasduring January and March battles of 1919, into animportant revolutionary mass party. The German, Italianand Austrian delegations to the Third Congressdemanded that no mention of the Open Letter issued bythe United German Communist Party should be made inthe theses. Comrade Lenin strongly objected to this linein his speech of July 1, 1921, delivered in defence of the

theses on tactics introduced on behalf of the Russiandelegation to the Congress. Lenin objected to a numberof amendments made by the above-mentioned threedelegations, and in connection with their amendmentconcerning the Open Letter, said the following:

Then comes the following amendment: (he quotes the

amendment of the three delegations-O.P.) that On page4, column 1, line 10, the words Open letter should bedeleted. I have already heard a speech today in which Ifound the same idea. But there it was quite natural. Thatwas the speech of Comrade Hempel, member of theGerman Communist Labour Party. He said: The OpenLetter was an act of opportunism But when at theCongress the Open letter@ is declared to be

opportunist, it is a shame and disgrace! And thenComrade Terrachini appears on behalf of threedelegations and wants to delete the words Open letter The Open Letter is an exemplary political step It isexemplary as the first act of the practical method ofdrawing in the majority of the working class.* At the first

* Lenin, Vol. XXVI., pages 442-443. Russian Third

Edition]


11/74

10Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I., which took place in

February, 1922, the French, Italian and Spanishdelegations voted against the resolution of the unitedfront.

In connection with the ever growing intensity of thecapitalist offensive against the conquests of the workingclass, during the economic crisis which had began, theComintern and the Profintern at the suggestion of Lenin,

made a proposal in January, 1922, to the working menand women of all countries that a united front beestablished against the capitalist offensive, war and war-debts, etc. In this manifesto we read:

The Executive Committee of the Communist Inter-national and of Red Trade Union International (Profintern)

has examined ... questions connected with the conditionsof the international proletariat and with the world situationin general, and has arrived at the firm conviction thatthese conditions demand that all the forces of theinternational proletariat be united, that a united front beestablished for all parties which derive their support fromthe proletariat, regardless of the differences which existamong them, in so fare as they desire to fight in unison

for the immediate, urgent needs, of the proletariat. TheExecutive Committee of the Comintern calls upon theproletarians in the ranks of all other parties to all withintheir power to influence their own parties in the interestsof common action


12/74

11The Communist International calls upon all Communist

workers, all honest workers in general, everywhere -inthe workshop, at meetings- to unite into one single familyof toilers, which will be capable of standing up for itselfand repulsing all the attacks made by capital at everydifficult moment. Forge the iron will for proletarian unity,against which every attempt to disunite the proletarianswill smash to smithereens, from whatever quarter it maycome. If you, proletarians, grasp hands in the workshop

and in the mine, all the parties that draw their supportfrom the proletariat and make their appeals to you willfind themselves compelled to unite to for joint defensivewar against capital? Only in this case will they becompelled to break off the alliance with the capitalistparties.

The Second and Two-and-a-half (the so-called Vienna)Internationals did not respond to this appeal made by theComintern and the Red Profintern.

On April 10, 1922, the International EconomicConference opened in Genoa to discover means for theeconomic restoration of Central and Eastern Europe,but chiefly, of course, to solve the Russian problem. In

the minds of the imperialist sharks, this conference wasto thrust a system upon Soviet Russia that would convertit into a colony of Western European capital.

The Communist International proposed to the Secondand Two-and-a-half Internationals that, as against theGenoa conference, an international labour congress of allworking class organisations be called to establish aunited fighting front against the capitalist offensive. The


13/74

12representatives of the three internationals came together

in Berlin at the conference held between April 2-5, 1922,to discuss the questions of the possibility of calling such acongress.

As soon as the conference opened a struggle: beganabout the agenda. The representatives of the Cominternproposed that the following questions be placed on theagenda:

(1) defence against the capitalist offensive; (2) thestruggle against reaction; (3) preparations for the struggleagainst new imperialist wars; (4) help in the restoration ofthe Russian Soviet Republic; (5) the Versailles Treatyand the restoration of the devastated areas.

The Second and Two-and-a-half Internationals proposedthat the question of Georgia be included in the Agenda.The point was that the Socialists of all shades whosupported the Russian, and in particular, the GeorgianMensheviks advanced the slanderous accusation againstthe Bolsheviks of annexing Georgia. In their efforts touse the united front for the purpose of legalisingMenshevik and S.R. (socialist-revolutionary) or-

ganisations on the territory of the U.S.S.R., theyproposed that the question of the trial of the CentralCommittee of the S.R. Party, which had made an attempton the life of Comrade Lenin and had murderedComrades Volodarsky, Uritsky and others, should also bediscussed at the conference. They demanded that thedeath sentence should not be brought in against theaccused, and insisted upon representatives of theSecond International being allowed to act as counsel for


14/74

13the defence to the socialist-revolutionaries. Finally, they

raised the question of the impermissibility in general ofarresting S.R.s and Mensheviks in Russia, people whowere engaged in struggle against the Soviet Governmentarms in hand.

After long altercations as to the agenda, the conferencenevertheless passed a resolution, which called for massdemonstrations during the sessions of the Genoa

conference in the following terms:

The conference calls upon all toilers in all countries toundertake united mass demonstrations during the Genoaconference, namely, on April 20, 1922. Where this isimpossible for technical or organisational reasons, thereshould be demonstrations on May 1 on behalf of the

eight-hour working day, for the struggle againstunemployment, which has increased without measurethanks to the reparations policy of the capitalist states;the demonstrations should also be in support of theRussian revolution, for starving Russia, for the restorationof political and economic relations between all states andSoviet Russia, and for the creation of a commonproletarian front on a national and international scale.

Then it was decided to set up an organisationalcommittee of nine members to prepare for a broaderconference.

However, despite the fact that the: representatives of theSecond and Two-and-a-half Internationals voted for theresolution that was passed, the parties of the Second andTwo-and-a-half Internationals neither on April 20, nor on


15/74

14May 1, demonstrated together with the Communist

Parties. The Second and Two-and-a-half Internationalsdid their utmost to hinder the preparations for the callingof a broad international labour conference. What is more,the French, Belgian, and British Social-DemocraticParties decided May 21, 1922, to call an internationalcongress in the Hague in which the Communists wouldnot participate.

The Social-Democratic Parties replied in the negative toall the proposals made by the Communist Partiesregarding the operation of a united front during therelative stabilisation of capitalism. Social-Democrats in allcountries helped the bourgeoisie to carry throughcapitalist rationalisation. They were full of solitude aboutthe ability of their own bourgeoisie to compete with other

capitalist countries.

When rejecting, the proposals made by the CommunistParties that the united front be operated during the strikestruggle in the period of the economic crisis, the Social-Democrats pointed, incidentally, to the alleged fact thatduring a crisis it is altogether impossible to wage a strikestruggle. But practical experience showed that during the

past crisis, there were no fewer strikes in many countriesthan there were prior to the crisis. During that period,approximately, 20 million persons took part in strikes, andtogether about 300 million working days were lost.

The difficulties which the Social-Democratic Parties andthe leaders of the reformist trade unions actually placedin the way of the establishment of the united classfighting front called forth dissatisfaction among the


16/74

15members of the reformist trade unions and the Socialist

Parties. They were gradually drawn into the strikestruggle led by the Communists, and began to listen towhat they were told by the Communists and therevolutionary workers supporting them.

The Fascist coup d'etat in Germany introduced severechanges into the ranks of the working class. The fact ofthe betrayal committed by the biggest Social-Democratic

Party, which was actually in power in Prussia, and whichhanded over the reins of power to the fascists without afight, elicited still stronger discontent and alarm in theranks of the members of the reformist trade unions and ofthe Social-Democratic Parties. The united front proposalswhich the Communists systematically made in differentcountries, the growing understanding among the Social-

Democratic workers alarmed at fascism, of thecorrectness of the criticism levelled by the Communists,of the rejection of the united front by the Social-Democratic leaders, -all this compelled a number of theparties of the Second International and some of theSocialist Parties not affiliated to the Second International,in reply to the proposals made by the Communist Partiesthat a united front against fascism be established, to

make proposals to the Communist Parties that pacts ofnon-aggression be concluded (that the Communistsshould cease to criticise them).

This was the main theme of all the demands made by theSocialists, and exposed the true reason for theirproposals. Even the Second International was compelledto resort to the same proposal regarding the cessation ofpossible attacks by the Communists. The following was


17/74

16stated in the Manifesto of the Second International to the

workers of all countries on February 19, 1933:

We call upon the: German workers, the workers of allcountries, in view of the tragic danger which confrontsthem, to cease all possible attacks and to fight togetheragainst fascism! The Labour and Socialist International isalways ready to enter into negotiations with theCommunist International concerning such unity of

struggle, as soon as the latter expresses its readiness todo so.

To this manifesto, the Comintern replied on March 5,1933, in a manifesto which pointed to the need for aunited fighting front against the offensive of capital andfascism, and to the fact that it was prepared to cease

attacks against the Socialists if they together with theCommunists, would fight against the offensive of capitaland fascism. Here are the three chief points in thismanifesto:

(a) The Communists and Social-Democrats commenceat once to organise and carry out defensive actionagainst the attacks of fascism and reaction on the

political, trade union, cooperative and other workersorganisations, on the workers press, on the freedom ofmeetings, demonstrations and strikes. They shallorganise common defence against the armed attacks ofthe fascist bands by carrying out mass protests, streetdemonstrations and political mass strikes; they shallproceed to organise committees of action in theworkshops and factories, the Labour Exchanges and theworkers quarters, as well as to organise self-defence


18/74

17groups.

(b) Communists and Social-Democrats shall commenceat once to organise the protest of the workers, with theaid of meetings, demonstrations and strikes, against anywage reductions, against worsening of the workingconditions, against attacks on social insurance, againstthe cutting down of unemployment benefit, againstdismissals from the factories.

(c) In the adoption and practical carrying out of these twoconditions the E.C.C.I. considers it possible torecommend the Communist Parties, during the time ofcommon fight against capital and fascism, to refrain frommaking attacks on Social-Democratic organisations. Themost ruthless fight must be conducted against all those

who violate the conditions of the agreement in carryingout the united front, as against strike breakers whodisrupt the united front of the workers.

The Second International very quickly, three days later,responded to this manifesto in order to reject it. In reply ofthe Secretariat of the Second International it says thatwhat is lacking in the manifesto of the Comintern is a

readiness to negotiate on an international basis, for theComintern appealed not directly to the SecondInternational, but gave instructions to its Sections in allcountries to begin negotiations with the Social-Democratic Parties as to the establishment of a unitedfront on the basis of these three points. The SecondInternational saw in this clear and definite proposal amanoeuvre on the part of the Comintern. Here is anexact excerpt from their reply:


19/74

18This readiness to negotiate on an international basis is

lacking in the manifesto of the Communist International. Itis satisfied merely to recommend that negotiations becarried out on in individual countries. But experienceunfortunately shows that the Communists find no difficultyin endowing such negotiations in separate countries withthe character of manoeuvres, thus bringing about aworse situation, and that they do not lessen, but deepenthe distrust in the ranks of the working class movement.

Therefore we consider it our duty to propose that theParties affiliated to the Labour and Socialist Internationalto refrain as far as possible from discussing this sort ofCommunist proposal in individual countries until theExecutive Committee of the Labour and SocialistInternational states its opinion concerning the newplatform of the Comintern.

Thus, the proposals which the Communist Parties madeto the Socialist Parties on the basis of the manifesto ofthe Comintern, were rejected by the Social-DemocraticParties on the pretext that the Comintern had notappealed direct to the Socialist International. Yet theSecond International itself in its manifesto of February 19,1933, did not appeal to the Comintern, but to the workers

of all countries!

As shown by the experience of the subsequent appealsof the Comintern to the Second International regardingthe establishment of the united fighting front on aninternational scale, this was merely the prelude to therejection of the united front.


20/74

19The United Front In Different Countries

FRANCE. The events in Germany, the armed struggleof the workers and of the Schutzbundlers in Austria, theunited front of the Communists, Schutzbundlers andmembers of the Social-Democratic Party during thearmed struggle in Austria were of tremendous importancefor the working class of all capitalist countries. Theseevents showed sections of the workers that Communistcriticism of the reformist tactics is well founded. It helpedthe Communists to come closer to the Social. Democraticworkers and the members of reformist trade unions, andlightened the task of establishing the united fighting frontin a number of countries. Under the influence of theeconomic crisis and of these events, the desire for unityamong the working class for the struggle against fascism

has increased. Above all, this desire has manifested itselfamong the French workers.

During the period which passed between November,1922, and the time when the united front pact was signedon July 17, 1934, the Communist Party of France madeunited front proposals on 26 occasions to the FrenchSocialist Party. In 1923 it proposed that they should act

jointly against the occupation of the Ruhr. After that itproposed that a joint amnesty campaign be organised,that an agreement be arrived at during the second roundof the elections, and that a joint struggle should beconducted against Italian fascism, etc. Finally, itproposed that a joint struggle should be waged for thedisarmament. of fascist bands. All these proposals were

invariably rejected by the Socialist Party of France.


21/74

20In May, 1931, Henri Barbusse and Romain Rolland made

a proposal to the Socialist and Communist Parties ofother countries to take part in the anti-war and anti-fascistcongress convened by them. The Communists, of courseimmediately agreed to take part in the Congress, but theSocialists replied to this proposal by later excluding fromthe Party all members of the Socialist Party of France,who subsequently took part in this congress.

Thus, so long as the German fascists had not crushedthe political and economic organisations of the workingclass, so long as the workers of France were notconvinced of the fact that the Socialist Party of Austriawas following in the footsteps of the German Social-Democratic Party in capitulating before fascism, theunited front in France between Communists and

Socialists was not established. In February 1934, theFrench fascists made their first serious sally byorganising a demonstration to Parliament on February 6demanding the resignation of the government. Thefascists made use of the hullabaloo that was raised at thetime in connection with the financial affaire Stavisky, anddemagogically demanded that all the corrupted, all thethieves, etc.; should be punished knowing full well that

their leaders were also mixed up in the affair. The so-called left government of Dalaider sent troops againstthe fascist demonstrations. They fired on the fascistsamong whom there were victims. When the workersheard of the fascist demonstration to parliament, theyalso went to parliament, in the majority of cases of theirown accord and in some localities at the suggestion ofthe local organisations of the Communist Party, anddemonstrations began throughout the whole of Paris.


22/74

21The Communist Party of France took account of the

mood of the working class. On February 7, 1934, it calledupon the French proletariat to demonstrate on February9. When the manifesto of the Communist Partycontaining the call to demonstrate was published, theSocialist Party called for a general strike of folded armson February 12 (i.e., a strike to cease work without anydemonstrations, meetings. etc.). The Socialists intendedby their: appeal to prevent the workers from taking part in

the February 9 demonstrations. The reformist tradeunions, at one with the Socialists, proposed to theworkers that they should not demonstrate in response tothe appeal of the Communist Party because, they said,there would certainly be bloodshed. The reformist leadersof the trade unions even had big notices pasted roundthe town to this effect.

The Communist Party of France acted correctly when itdeclared that it would also call upon the workers to takepart in a general strike, but not a down tools strike. Itcalled upon them to go on strike and demonstrate. But atthe same time, the Party did not give up its call todemonstrate on February 9. The workers of Parisdemonstrated on February 9 at the call of the Communist

Party. The police and the troops occupied the Place de laRepublique in Paris, but the demonstrators wereunsuccessful breaking through to the streets boundingthe square and thus won the streets for themselves.Usually it is not allowed to arrange street demonstrationsin Paris, and in the majority of cases they take place outof town, primarily in parts where there are Socialist andCommunist municipalities. But broad sections of themasses joined the demonstration on February 9, 1934, at


23/74

22the call of the Communist Party alone, against the will of

the Socialists and the leaders of the reformist unions, andnot only in Paris, but in all the: industrial towns of Franceas well. The strike on February 12 was very successfulalso; about four million workers took part in it. This strike,which was called separately by the Socialists andCommunists, did much to establish the united front inFrance.

On May 21, 1934, the French anti-war and anti-Fascistcongress took place in Paris. At the same time, inToulouse, the Congress of the Socialist Party of Francetook place. The anti-Fascist congress made a proposal tothe Socialist Party Congress that it should join in the anti-war and anti-Fascist movement. The press at that timewrote much about this proposal and about the position of

the Socialist Party. The proposal of the anti-Fascist andanti-war congress was put to the vote at the SocialistParty Congress, and rejected by a majority of votes.There were 2,437 votes cast against the proposal of theanti-Fascist and anti-war congress and 1,286 votes infavour (in the Socialist Party of France there is a systemof representation by which one delegate can haveseveral mandates). After the proposal had been rejected,

one section of the delegates to the Socialist Congress,with 1,301 mandates at their disposal, made a proposalthat a delegation be sent to Moscow to discuss with theComintern the conditions for unity of action between theSocialist and Communist Parties. But this proposal alsowas rejected by a majority of 2,324 votes.

However, under the: influence of the somewhat strongminority which made itself felt at the congress and


24/74

23demanded that a united front be set up (this minority

consisted primarily of delegates from industrial centres),the Congress of the Socialist Party empowered itsCentral Committee (administrative commission) toestablish a united front With the Communists, but only fora definite time and only on one question. 'The CommunistParty of France made use of this decision, and on May27, 1934, proposed that the Central Committee of theSocialist Party of France organise a united front for the

defence and the defence of Comrade Thaelmann. Noanswer was forthcoming to the proposal of theCommunist. Party. On June 5, 1934, the CommunistParty repeated its proposal and this time it was met witha refusal. Then the Paris organisation of the CommunistParty approached the Socialist Party on June 22, 1934,with the same proposal, and it was accepted. Thus, an

agreement was arrived at in the Paris region between theregional organisations of the two parties for joint actiondefence of Comrade Thaelmann.

In June 1934, the Party Conference of the CommunistParty once again proposed to the Socialists that theyshould conclude a united front pact. Taking intoconsideration the fact that the representatives of big

industrial regions at the Socialist Party Congress were infavour of establishing a united front, and that the Parisorganisation, one of the biggest, had concluded a unitedfront with the Communists over the heads of the SocialistParty leaders, the C.C. of the Socialist Party wascompelled to declare that it would call the NationalCouncil (conference) of the party to discuss the proposalmade by the Communists. In July, 1934 a united frontpact was concluded between the Communists and


25/74

24Socialists. The Communists proposed that the platform

for the united front should be the struggle against theFascists, against war, and assistance in organising, theeconomic struggle. The Socialists agreed to the first twopoints, but refused to conduct a united front on thequestion of the strike struggle, because, as they said, itwas not a question within their competence, but was asthe business of the trade unions. This, of course, wassimply an excuse, as the Socialists are actually against

the strike struggle. For their part, they put forward a thirdpoint demanding that the Communists declare that theywould fight and defend all democratic rights. TheCommunist Party of France agreed to this demand.

From this time: onwards the united front had beenofficially established in France. In what way has it been

expressed hitherto, and what are the results of it? It hasbeen expressed chiefly in the organisation of jointdemonstrations, meetings, indoor meetings against thefascists and against the emergency decrees of thegovernment. On the anniversary of the events ofFebruary 6, a Fascist attack was repulsed by theCommunists and Socialists. When the Communist andSocialist Parties discovered that the Fascists had

occupied the Place de la Concorde, in Paris, they putforward the slogan that everybody should go to the sameplace. From all corners of Paris, from all the Metrostations, the workers came in masses to the square andforced the Fascists out of it. This was a big event forFrance.

The united front in France was furthermore expressed inthe fact that during the second round of the municipal


26/74

25and Canton elections, the Communists and Socialists

supported each other. If a Communist in any localityobtained more votes than the Socialist during the firstround of voting, then the Socialists voted for the Com-munists in that place, and vice versa. This gave somepositive results. There were places where theCommunists and the Socialists were successful by thismeans in defeating the candidates of the Fascists, and ofwinning new seats and even whole municipalities.

A national French anti-war and anti-Fascist committeewas formed which organised 1,400 local committees; awomen's national committee was also formed for struggleagainst war and Fascism, covering about 500,000members, affiliated through their organisations, accordingto official data. This figure is very likely all exaggerated

one, but even if the committee covers only half of thenumber given, the result is a good one; a vigilance com-mittee of the anti-Fascist intelligentsia has beenorganised, to which about 6,000 professors, lawyers,writers and other intellectuals of the liberal professionsbelong; there has also been organised the Paris regionalcommittee of unity of action against Fascism, whichcovers about 500,000 affiliated members through their

organisations. The Socialist and Communist sportsfederations of labour have joined forces. This already isnot a united front, but organic unity; a untied CentralCommittee of ex-Service men has been formed, whichcovers 28 organisations; an agreement has been arrivedat between the General Confederation of ToilingPeasants (Communist) and the National Confederation ofPeasants (Socialist) on the subject of unity. Negotiationsare going on at present and it is possible that in the near


27/74

26future they will unite. In Toulouse a national committee

was created to render assistance to the victims ofSpanish Fascism. This Committee covers nine Socialistdepartmental federations, nine regional organisations ofthe Communist Party of France, seven reformist tradeunion organisations, 14 unitary trade unions, fivefederations of the League of the rights of man andCitizen, etc. This committee constitutes a broadorganisation connected with the masses. At the congress

organised by this committee 800 delegates were present,representing 300,000 anti-Fascists. Finally, there is acentral anti-Fascist committee in Lyons, which unites 31organisations, committees of united anti-Fascist action; inthe department of Cher (20 organisations), in thedepartment of Herault (20 organisations), and in severalother departments and towns. There is also a National

Committee of Struggle of the Youth against war andFascism (350 local committees). It should be noted thatthe united front against war and Fascism was conductedby some organisations apart from and against the will ofthe leaders of the Socialist Party (anti-war and anti-Fascist committees, women's national committees, etc.).

The existence and functioning of such comparatively

mass organisations which in the majority of cases werecreated on the initiative of the Communist Party ofFrance, thanks to the popularisation and application ofthe united front tactics in the struggle against French,German, Austrian and Spanish Fascism, could not buthave raised the authority of the Central Committee of theCommunist Party of France in the eyes of the workers,clerks and peasants, and increased its influence overthem. This has inspired some of the leaders of the


28/74

27Socialist Party to seek reasons for breaking do down the

united front brought about with the Communists.

On February 20, 1935, a session of the C.C. of theSocialist Party of France took place. As has transpired,the question of the united front evoked differences at thissession. Several members of the C.C. demanded that theunited front be broken, while members of the C.C. fromthe big industrial centres, more closely connected with

the working masses, declared that if the united front werebroken down, it would still be carried on over the heads ofthe party committees of the Socialist Party. We find thefollowing in the decision passed on this question at thesession of the C.C. (as we learn from well-informedcircles in the Socialist Party): ( 1) To propose that theCommunist Party call a conference of all proletarian

parties (i.e., with the participation of the Right Wing"Pupists" [* P.U.P.: Partie Ouvrier et Paysan, Workersand Peasants Party, renegades from Communism] andthe followers of Deriot -O.P.) to discuss questions oforganisational unity. (2) To demand that the CommunistParty cease all criticism not only of the Socialist Party butalso of the International. (3) To get closer to the radicalsin view of the coming municipal elections, so as to show

the Communist Party that the Socialists can managequite well without it. (4) To demand that The CommunistParty dissolve its auxiliary organisations like, for example,the Amsterdam committee against war, etc., with anindication that the committee to co-ordinate actionbetween the Communists and Socialists is enough for theanti-fascist struggle. (5) To demand that the CommunistParty make a declaration of neutrality both as regards theC.G.T. (reformist trade unions O.P.), as well as in


29/74

28respect to the C.G.T.U. (revolutionary trade unions

O.P.). By their last point the Socialists wanted to get theCommunist Party to make a declaration agreeing torelinquish the leadership of the revolutionary tradeunions.

These decisions of the C.C. were to have been proposedto the national council (conference) of the Socialist Party.But at the conference the mood of the delegates from the

localities was, apparently, such that the leaders did notrisk insisting upon these proposals. The conferencepassed another resolution by means of which theynevertheless hoped to break the united front. Thisresolution of the conference runs:

The National Council recognises that the political

conditions which at one time justified the conclusion ofunity of action with the Communist Party still exist today,and, consequently, unity of action should continue

The National Council, anxious to obtain the maximumchances of the workers being successful in their struggleagainst capitalism and bourgeois fascist reaction, isconvinced that the surest method of achieving its ends is

to bring about organisational unity to the utmost

(1) The organisation of the proletariat into a class partyfor the conquest of power and for the socialisation of themeans of production and trade, i.e., for the reorganisationof capitalist society into a collectivist or Communistsociety.

(2) The actions of the party will be determined by the


30/74

29party itself at its national congresses, after consultation

with its organisations in the localities and in the districts.

Some of the leaders of the Socialists reckoned that theCommunists would give a refusal to this proposal tounite, and that they would then have an excuse forbreaking the united front. It was clear to the Socialiststhat the Communists would not agree to unity with theSocialists without the necessary pre-conditions. They

reckoned, therefore, that the Communists would replyrefusing to open negotiations on the subject of unity, andthat then they, the Socialists, would be able to launch ademagogic campaign against the Communists byspeculating on the desire of the workers for unity. Theywould then depict the Communists as splitters of theworking class, etc. But the Communist Party of France

upset all their calculations. It agreed to send itsrepresentatives to the commission to discuss thequestion of organic unity. Moreover, the Communist Partyof France put forward the Communist programme themost important points in the programme of theComintern as the platform around which unity shouldtake place. It has become possible for wide sections ofworkers who are carefully following the correspondence

between the two Parties on the question of the unitedfront, and the demands they put forward, to acquaintthemselves with programme of the Communists, withwhich they have not hitherto been acquainted.

Not so long ago, during the recent municipal and Cantonelections (May 5 and 26, 1935), the Communists Party ofFrance was able to test the attitude of the workerstowards itself. These elections had two rounds. The first


31/74

30round of the municipal elections took place on May 5, and

the Communist Party of France took part in them quiteindependently in the main, with its own programme; thesecond round took place on May 12, and in the secondround the Communists entered into an agreement withthe Socialists. Although the Central Committee of theSocialist Party had decided on February 20 to participatein the municipal elections together with the radicals,which was far more advantageous to them than to come

to an arrangement with the Communists, the workersbrought such pressure to bear upon the leading organs ofthe Socialist Party that it was forced, with hear pangs, tocome to an agreement with the Communists, and only ina few unimportant regions did the socialists enter into abloc with the radicals.

As a result of the municipal elections, the Communistsobtained a majority in 52 new municipalities out of a totalof 47. The Communist Party of France now has amajority in 90 municipalities (the Socialists in 168 insteadof 175 as formerly). In the Seine department, the numberof municipalities led by Communists has increased from 9to 26. In the Seine and Oise districts, the Communistsobtained a majority in the municipalities of over 20

industrial towns. In the North and the Pas de Calaisregion, the number of municipalities won by theCommunists increased from 17 to 50. In the Parismunicipality Comrade Marty only represented theCommunists previously, whereas now the CommunistParty of France has secured the election of eightcomrades.

The Communist Party of France adopted flexible tactics


32/74

31at these elections. In Bond, the Communist Party

included Socialist workers in its list and thus defeated thejoint lists of the Socialists and anti-Communists.

In Saint Victor (part of Paris), the reactionaries were 20votes short of an absolute majority. The Communist Partyobtained 700, the radicals 600, and the Socialists 500votes. The Communist Party proposed that an anti-Fascist candidate be put forward against the reactionary

candidate. The radicals and Socialists agreed to theproposal made by the Communist Party, and as a resultof the united Anti-Fascist front, 150 votes more were castfor the anti-Fascist candidate than the three partiesreceived altogether in the first round of elections. Thereactionaries thus lost 150 votes.

The Communist Party was the only party that won atthese elections. All the remaining parties lost the majorityin several municipalities. The majority of themunicipalities won by the Communists were from thebourgeois parties. Only in the: textile and coal districtswere they won from the Socialists.

No less important was the victory of the Communists at

the Canton elections in the Paris region. Hitherto theCommunist Party of France has had four councillors inthe Paris region; now it has 25. Together with the eightParis councillors, the Communist Party of France nowhas 33 representatives out of 140 in the General Councilof the department of the Seine (this General Council iscomposed of 90 councillors of the Paris municipality and50 councillors elected in the areas around Paris). TheCommunist Party of France, the Socialists and the


33/74

32Radicals, have 73 councillors together, the reactionary

parties 67, whereas hitherto over a period of 50 years,the latter have had the majority in the General Council ofthe Seine department.

The results of the elections testify to the success and theincreasing influence of the Communist Party over themasses.

I will give another example which speaks of the growth ofthe influence and popularity of the Communist Party:

On May 19, 1935, the anniversary of the fall of the ParisCommune, a tremendous demonstration of the Parisworkers took place in the Pre la Chaise cemetery.These demonstrations have been usually arranged for

May 26, but in view of the fact that the canton electionswere taking place, the Communist Party called thedemonstrations for May 19. The Communist Party ofFrance did not consult the Socialist Party concerning itsappeal, and the latter objected to the demonstrationbeing arranged at the Pre la Chaise. It proposed thatthe demonstration be organised in another place againstthe Fascists, who were celebrating Joan of Arc Day. The

Socialist organisation of Paris agreed to demonstrate withthe Communists, and afterwards, the next day, thePopulaire also was compelled to call for a jointdemonstration with the Communists. The demonstrationlasted for 5 hours, and about 250, 000 persons tookpart. When the demonstrators passed the CentralCommittee of the Communist Party, near which theSocialist leaders were standing, they greeted it with criesof Long live Comrade Stalin, long live the French


34/74

33Communist Party, long live Soviets everywhere!

This demonstration showed that the Communist Party isalready a big force in Paris. The same cannot be said ofthe North or of other industrial centres of France wherethe Communist Party of France is weaker than theSocialist Party. The Socialist Party has about 100,000members. The trade unions which support it unite about600,000 members. The Communist Party now has

53,000 members, and there are approximately 220,000members in the revolutionary trade unions.

Thanks to the work of the Communists in conducting theunited front, broad masses are now aware that theCommunist Party is not only fighting actively againstFascism and war and for democratic liberties, but that it is

heading this struggle.

Tremendous tasks face the Communist Party of Franceconnected with the task of consolidating its growinginfluence.

SPAIN. -All the proposals made by the CommunistParty of Spain for a united front, during the period from

193I (prior to 193I there were only a few hundredmembers in the Communist Party of Spain and it did notrepresent a political force at all) to 1933, so long as theSpanish Socialist Party was participating in theGovernment, were rejected by the latter in the mostinsulting, and rude manner. But when, in November,1933, the Socialist party suffered defeat at the elections

to parliament and was thrown out of the government, it


35/74

34proposed a united front itself on the following platform: (1)

that the struggle be discontinued between theCommunists and Socialists; (2) that all former insults beforgotten; (3) that the united front from below bediscontinued as it only increases the differences; (4) thatthey should meet each other half-way.

How can we explain this turn of the Socialist party infavour of the united front?

Despite the intensely negative attitude of the socialistleaders towards the united front, the Communist partypursued the united front from below with the localorganisations of the Socialist Party and of the tradeunions. The Communist party of Spain organised and ledthe strike of the Madrid metal workers. It called for a

general strike and partly carried it through at thebeginning of 1934. It organised and partly put through astrike of agricultural labourers in the summer of 1934. Inall these strikes, members of the Socialist Party and thereformist trade unions also took part. For the purpose ofweakening the growing influence of the Communist Partyover the workers and members of the Socialist party andthe reformist trade unions, and in order to paralyse the

united front tactics operated by the Communist Party, theleaders of the Socialists and of the reformist trade unions,in the summer of 1934, organised the Alliance Obrero,i.e., an alliance to co-ordinate the joint activities of theworkers. At first the Communist Party attitude towards theAlliance Obrero was one of disbelief and of waiting fordevelopments. When the Alliance Obrero were formedby the socialists in some industrial towns and theCommunists had not as yet decided on their attitude


36/74

35towards them, the socialists hastily put forward the

slogan of all power to the Alliance Obrero. A short timelater the Communist party decided to join the AllianceObrero, and put forward the demand thatrepresentatives from the factories, workshops andpeasant organisations should be drawn into the AllianceObrero. The Communist Party of Spain proposed thatbesides other points the programme of the AllianceObrero should also include a point about confiscation of

lands and their transfer to the peasantry. In the conditionsexisting in Spain, the latter demand was of specialimportance; the condition of the Spanish peasantry areextremely bad, there are tremendous remnants offeudalism in the Spanish village, and in Spain there is alarge number of agricultural proletarians. And if thisdemand reached broad sections of the peasantry the

workers could reckon upon their support in the struggleagainst the bourgeois-landlord and catholic-fascistreaction. The Socialist Party declared that the demand forthe confiscation of the land w as not part of t he tasksfacing it, and that it was fighting for revolution for theworkers. It had no objection to representatives of thefactories and workshops joining the "Alliance Obrero.Having joined the Alliance Obrero, the Communists

rapidly began to acquire influence there, and then thesocialists who at one time had proclaimed the slogan allpower to the Alliance Obrero, changed it to the sloganall power to the Socialist Party.

The socialists openly declared that they were preparingfor an uprising-they even had some weapons. And whenthe Leroux government brought the Fascists, Robles andCo. into its ranks, our Party and the Socialist Party


37/74

36declared a general strike. They were quite right in doing

so. But the armed uprising into which the strikedeveloped was actually without a central revolutionaryleadership. The communists had only just joined theAlliance Obrero, which was to have fulfilled this leadingrole, and so they had not yet sufficient real influence at allpoints and the leadership of the uprising fell to thehands of the socialists. The latter put a revolutionarycommittee at the head of the uprising, composed of

petty-bourgeois, incompetent and irresolute people. Andalthough the socialists had joined the communists indeclaring the general strike, they actually sabotaged it.They were afraid to distribute weapons among theworkers, especially among the communists; they did notcall the railway men out on strike, which made it possiblefor the troops to move from town to town. They did not

call upon their supporters in the army to join the uprising,etc. The Communist Party alone energetically and self-sacrificingly carried out the obligations it had taken uponitself. In some places the strike was conducted skilfullyand well. Thus, in Asturias, where the Communist Partyof Spain was very strong, and where there was a strongred miners' union, the Communist Party took theleadership of the struggle into its own hands. There not

only did the strike develop into an uprising, but Sovietpower was organised. The communists and socialistsand the workers of Asturias, under their leadership,revealed miracles of courage and efficient management.The uprising in Asturias suffered defeat. In Catalonia,where there is an industrial proletariat, there were, ofcourse, all the pre-conditions for ail uprising, but theCommunist Party and the socialists were still very weakthere. Those who have the greatest influence over the


38/74

37working-class in Catalonia are the anarchists and

anarcho-syndicalists, who black-legged and called uponthe workers to stop the strikes and other activities. Theyopenly took the side of the counter-revolutionarygovernment. The nationalist elements who acted underthe slogan of "the separation of Catalonia from Spain,"very quickly surrendered themselves to the mercy of thevictors.

The fact that the socialist workers fought on thebarricades side by side with the Communists left a deepimpression among the rank and file members of theSocialist Party. Despite the tremendous number ofmurders, arrests, trials, etc., after the uprising in Asturias,the three miners unions (the red, the reformists and theanarcho-syndicalist) that have united, frequently arrange

strikes in Asturias, both of an economic and of a politicalcharacter. It cannot be said that the temporary defeat hada demoralising influence upon the Spanish workers.

After the October armed struggle, committees to co-ordinate action were formed, which included thecommunists, socialists, red trade unions, reformist tradeunions, and the communist and socialist youth. The main

task of these committees is the struggle to legalise thetrade unions and other working-class organisations andto help arrested men and their families. The work of thesecommittees is also sabotaged by the leaders of theSocialist Party.

Despite the weakness of our party, which was particularlynoticeable during the uprising, the united front tacticswhich it pursued before the uprising, and its heroic armed


39/74

38struggle during the uprising, has given it an opportunity of

penetrating into the ranks not only of the socialistworkers, but also of the anarcho-syndicalist and anarchistworkers, and to establish considerably better relationsbetween them and the communists.

AUSTRIA: Before the February events in 1934, therewere 4,000 members in the Communist Party of Austria.Its influence over the working-class was weak. During the

February armed struggle the Communist Party was thefirst to call the workers to a general strike. The membersof the Communist Party fought shoulder to shoulder withthe Schutzbundists in all districts. During the struggle, theparty issued the correct slogan of the struggle for SovietPower and thereby strove to give the armed struggle adefinite political content.

Prior to February, 1934, the social-democratic party hadover 600,000 members.

As a result of the fact that the leaders of the social-democratic party and of the reformist trade unions hadactually capitulated to the fascists before and during thearmed struggle (while carrying on negotiations with

Dolfuss and refusing to undertake a struggle, the social-democratic party did not rally all, even, of its trade Unionmembers, did not assume the offensive against theenemy, and left it to the Schutzbundists alone to defendthemselves) strong disappointment and anger againsttheir leaders began to be felt among many of the social-democratic workers and members of reformist trade

unions. The passive elements left the struggle and themovement, and hid themselves, while the more active


40/74

39elements began to group around our party. As a result,

the Communist Party now has about 18,000 members.This increase has taken place exclusively as a result ofthe activity of former social-democrats andSchutzbundists. The Schutzbund, which played a big roleduring the armed struggle in February, 1934, was whollyand solely in the hands of the Central Committee of theSocial-Democratic Party of Austria both before andduring the February events. Now the Schutzbund is a

non-party organisation over which the Communist Partyof Austria has considerable influence.

Aware of the extent to which it had compromised itself inthe eyes of the working masses, the social-democraticparty decided to re-name itself the party of revolutionarysocialists. On several questions the Communist Party of

Austria and the party of revolutionary socialists acttogether.

In connection with international anti-war day, on August1st, 1934, the Central Committee of the Communist Partyof Austria made the proposal the social-democraticworkers, to the revolutionary socialists, and to theSchutzbund that a joint committee of action be

established to undertake the struggle against war and indefence of the Soviet Union. This committee wasestablished -leaflets and slogans were issued jointly, and

joint demonstrations were conducted.

In connection with the events in Spain, the communists,the revolutionary socialists and the Schutzbund issued a

joint manifesto, calling upon the Austrian workers to act insolidarity. A joint campaign was organised to collect


41/74

40funds in aid of the Spanish workers. Here also the united

front was concluded on the initiative of the CommunistParty.

On the anniversary of the celebration of the Octoberrevolution, meetings took place on the proposal of theCommunist Party, in all important localities and districts,prepared for and conducted by a united front of thecommunists and socialists. For the anniversary of the

February (1934) battles in Austria, the C.P. of Austriamade the proposal to the Central Committee and thelocal organisations of the revolutionary socialists, that a

joint manifesto be issued and that strikes anddemonstrations be organised jointly. At the jointconference specially convened to discuss this question,representatives of the Communist Party, the revolutionary

socialists, the Schutzbund, the free trade unions, theY.C.L., the socialist youth, Sports organisations and theInternational Red Aid were present. An agreement wasconcluded for a campaign to be conducted jointly, and for

joint action. Manifestoes were issued jointly to theAustrian proletariat, to the international proletariat, and tothe Second and Communist Internationals. In additionnumerous joint protest strikes took place in the factories

(at the Siemens and Fiat works, at the Rotmillermunitions works, at Siemen-Halske works, and manyothers). Joint demonstrations also took place in manyplaces during which some workers were seriouslywounded and one was killed.

After February, 1935, the C.C, of the C.P. of Austriaaddressed an open letter to the Central Committee of therevolutionary-socialists in which it proposed: (1) a


42/74

41permanent agreement on the united front, especially in

the factories, since it represents a higher form than thatof making agreements from time to time; (2) a struggle forthe unity of the free trade unions and against thesabotage of the reformist trade union committee; (3) jointstruggle to strengthen the united front on an internationalscale.

The Communist Party of Austria took upon itself the

initiative in re-establishing the former free trade unionswhich had been dissolved by the fascists. Some of theold reformist trade union officials began, with the consentof the Amsterdam International, to create trade unionorganisations on parallel lines. The communists obtainedno satisfactory reply to all their proposals to unite bothtrade union organisations. Therefore the second point of

the draft of the permanent agreement speaks of thestruggle to unite the free trade unions. It is only recentlythat the two trade union centres have been united. Wemay expect that unification will also take place in thelocalities and in the factories.

The Central Committee of the revolutionary socialistsrejected the proposal of the Communist Party of Austriafor the conclusion of a permanent agreement on theunited front.

The proposal of the Communist Party of Austria that MayDay be celebrated jointly was also turned down by therevolutionary Socialists. They even refused to issue a

joint May Day manifesto. This is to be explained by the


43/74

42fact that after the constant arrests, the former leadership

of the revolutionary socialists in Austria itself wasreplaced. It is hardly likely that this rejection of joint actionwill continue for long. Under the pressure of themembership and of the Schutzbundists, the leadershipwill be compelled to renew the united front.

The Communist Party of Austria has become aconsiderable force. Formerly the S.D. Party took no

account of it and laughed the united front proposals itmade to scorn. Now, on the other hand, social-democracy sees that the Communist Party is winning andhas already won considerable influence among theworkers, and is compelled to take account of if.

ITALY: In Italy the leaders of the Communist Party in

recent years made repeated proposals to the socialist,maximalist and republican parties to set up a unitedfighting front against war and fascism. The maximalists,headed by the well known Balabanova, rejected theproposal to set up a united front and on their partproposed that organic unity be established. (The C.C. ofthe maximalists, and the leaders of the other parties whoset themselves the task of carrying on a struggle against

Italian Fascism, are in emigration outside of Italy.) TheRepublican Party was ready to agree to this proposal, butthe Congress of that party rejected it. And only theSocialist Party agreed to set up a united front with theCommunists in the struggle against fascism and war. Theagreement between the Communists and Socialists wasconcluded on August 17th, 1934.

How did this united front express itself? First and


44/74

43foremost this united front took place when the Italian

Government was sending troops to the Austrian frontier,and now it is being conducted on the question of thestruggle against war by Italy on Abyssinia. It cannot yetbe said whether this united front has brought any tangibleresults, nevertheless in some places these two partiesact in concert, conduct strikes together, arrange jointdemonstrations, etc. Thus, they jointly organiseddemonstrations after the government published its

decision to despatch the fascist militia to the Abyssinianfront. This government decision caused a movement notonly among the peasantry and among the workers in thefactories, but also among the fascist militiamen.

Joint activities between the Socialists and Communistsare taking place abroad as well, among those who are

emigrants for political and economic reasons.

GERMANY:As is well-known, the Communist Party ofGermany immediately after the union o the Spartacistsand the Left Independents in January, 1921, made aproposal to the social-democratic party and the reformisttrade unions that a united fighting front for the vitaldemands of the German workers be established. Both

the Social-Democratic Party and the reformist tradeunions which then had the support of the majority of theworkers, rejected this proposal. On November 16, 1921,the Communist Party of Germany addressed a proposalto the German proletariat for a joint struggle for therealisation of their vital demands.

Long before the advent of Hitler to power the CommunistParty of Germany repeatedly made proposals to the


45/74

44Social-Democratic Party and the reformist trade unions

for joint struggle against fascism. Such an appeal wasmade in June, 1921, when the Communists proposedthat action be taken against the Bruemng government,against emergency taxation and against the fascists; onJuly 20, 1932, when the Prussian Social-DemocraticGovernment was swept away; on January 30, 1933,when Hitler came to power, and on March 5, 1933,election day, after the burning of the Reichstag. The

Social-Democratic Party and the reformist trade unionsrejected all these proposals.

But even before, and immediately after the advent of thefascists to power, the united front from below began to beset up spontaneously in several towns. It was expressedin the joint struggle of the Communists and the Social-

democrats against the fascists when fascist attacks onparty committees were beaten of, and in driving off fascistbands who set on workers, attacked party print shops,trade union halls, etc.

As soon as the Social-democratic party was declareddisbanded and its active members began to be arrested,beaten up, and thrown into concentration camps with the

Communists, the Social-Democratic party ceased to existin Germany as a centralised party. The majority of itsmembers became passive; many took refuge in theorganisations created by the fascists and remained in thefascist trade unions, and, after their dissolution, joined theLabour Front and the Strength in Joy organisations. Insome places scattered local groups of the former Social-Democratic party waged a struggle against fascism, andissued leaflets, etc., against it. There were not infrequent


46/74

45cases when these groups got into touch with party

organisations of the Communist Party of Germany, andthey assisted each other. Thus, for example, theCommunists printed leaflets for them, and theydistributed Communist leaflets, etc. Contacts were thusestablished between them and the Communists. Suchcases, although not infrequent, nevertheless did notpredominate in the daily practical activity of theCommunist Party of Germany. On the contrary, many of

the party organisations of the C.P.G. failed to grasp theimportance of establishing the united front with Social-Democratic groups which were fighting against thefascists. The tactics of many of the local organisations ofthe C.P.G. consisted in recruiting the best elements fromamong these groups into the party as quickly as possible.The remaining members of these groups were left without

any leadership, and the groups either fall to pieces or fellunder the influence of leaders with a negative attitudetowards the Communist Party of Germany. Theseelements were frequently successful in directing theirgroups against the Communist organisations. What ismore, the local Communist Party organisations did noteverywhere give those activists who had already joinedthe Communist Party an opportunity of working on an

equal footing with other members of the CommunistParty. They were relegated to the category of second-rate party members; they were not trusted, and this, ofcourse, caused harm. But the Central Committee of theC.P.G. quickly corrected these mistakes, and began toestablish the united front with the existing local Social-Democratic organisations. In some places the partymanaged to do this, but in the big organisations (in Berlinand the Ruhr) this task has not yet fulfilled. Only in


47/74

46certain parts of Germany have united front agreements

been concluded.

After June 1930, 1934, when the struggle within thefascist camp resulted in the murder of the Nazi leaders,of their former colleagues (Rohm, Ernst, and others), thePrague leaders of the Social-Democratic Party ofGermany began to take steps to revive its formerorganisations in the country. The Prague Central

Committee began to send literature, instructors andmoney from abroad to its former activists. It has not yetsucceeded in creating either a leadership or big localparty organisations; but after June 30, the Social-Democratic groups and individual social-democratsbecame considerably more active.

The Communists on two occasions made proposals tothe Central Committee of the Social-Democratic Party inPrague that a united front be established for the struggleagainst the fascists.

In connection with the elections to the "works councils" in1935, the Central Committee of the Communist Party ofGermany made a proposal to the Prague Central

Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party toconclude a united front to prepare for and conduct theelections. A majority of the Central Committee rejectedthe proposal of the Communist Party, declaring that itconsidered the Communist Party tactics to be merely amanoeuvre, and that generally speaking, in conditions offascist terror, there are no opportunities for realising theunited front.


48/74

47After the publication of the law concerning universal

conscription on March 16th

, 1935, the Communist Partyonce more made a proposal to the Prague CentralCommittee of the German Social-Democratic Party toconclude a united front against the war measures of theGovernment, etc. But the reply to this proposal was arefusal given by Stampfer, editor of the former centralorgan of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany,Vorwaerts, and now editor of the Neue Vorwaerts, who

declared that united front agreement would hinder thepolicy of Social-Democracy in Germany: Social-Democracy has, it is alleged, begun "to acquire influenceover bourgeois sections of the population and anagreement between the two parties would scare awaythese elements. The contradictions in the methods andaims of the two organisations are too great."

Inside the Social-Democratic Party itself severaloppositional groups were formed that of Aufhauser,Bechel, Miles, and others. They all have their supportersin the country. The Aufhauser-Bechel group declared thatit was in favour of establishing a united front with theCommunists, but that it could not operate in this countryindependently, without the C.C. of the S.P.G.

On the initiative of the regional organisations of theCommunist Party of Germany inside the country, it hasbeen possible to establish a united front on separatequestions with the existing parallel organisations of theSocial-Democratic Party. Thus an agreement was arrivedat between the regional leadership of the CommunistParty and of the Social-Democratic Party in Frankfurt(Western Germany) and Sdbaden (Southern Germany),


49/74

48for joint action at the elections to the "works councils." A

manifesto was issued by them and distributed in theshape of a leaflet in the factories. In this manifesto theUnity of Action Committee called upon the workers tostrike the names of the lackeys of the employers and theagents of Hitler from the lists, and to fight for workcouncils which would defend their interests.

Thus in Germany the adoption of the united front tactics

has produced some results. The Communist Party ofGermany has also being able to do something to restorethe former Free Trade Unions. The AmsterdamInternational, fearing that the Communists wouldentrench themselves, also sent instructors and money toGermany and began to recruit the people they needed, toarrange conferences and so on, in an effort to restore the

reformist trade unions parallel to the efforts of theCommunists. Despite all these disruptive measuresadopted by the Amsterdamites, it has been possible inthis sphere as well to establish the united front in someplaces. In a certain town in the north-east of Germany, atthe end of February, 1935, representatives of theCommunist Party and the Social-Democratic Partydiscussed questions concerning the illegal restoration of

the Free Trade Unions. As a result of this discussion, ajoint statement was issued in which they called for thecreation of militant, illegal class trade unions.

In the Lower Rhine district, on the River Buper,agreements were made in a number of towns andenterprises between the Communists and Social-Democrats on the re-establishment of the illegal tradeunions.


50/74

49On the whole the Communist Party of Germany has not

yet been successful on a wide scale in establishing theunited front with the majority of the Social-Democraticgroups and organisations for the struggle against fascismand war.

GREAT BRITAIN. In Great Britain the CommunistParty has about 7,000 members. The British LabourParty has about two million members and the reformist

trade unions even more. Here also the Communist Partyhas repeatedly made proposals to the Labour Party andto the reformist trade unions to set up a united front onvarious questions touching the interests of the workingclass. The Labour Party and the reformist trade unionsinvariably rejected the proposals, arrogantly declaringthat they have no need of the Communists, since the

Labour Party and the trade unions together representwithout them the colossal majority of the organisedworking class. They only failed to mention, however, thatthey do not use this influence over the majority in theinterests of the working class. In spite of all theserefusals, the Communist Party appealed over the headsof the Labour Party and trade union leaders to the localorganisations of the Labour Party and trade unions, to set

up a united front. Not infrequently these appeals have ledto positive results. The C.P.G.B established a united frontwith the I.L.P. on a series of questions (the fight againstfascism, against attempts to worsen the conditions of theunemployed). The C.P.G.B. and the I.L.P. jointlyorganised Hunger Marches and demonstrations againstfascism. Mosley, the leader of the British fascists, calleda review of his fascist guard on September 9th, 1934;about 5,000 were present. The Communist Party of Great


51/74

50Britain called upon the workers to demonstrate the same

day and at the same place. The Independent LabourParty, which while it has no more members than theCommunist Party, has more influence in the trade unions,

joined in. The Communist Party and the I.L.P. made thesame proposal to several Labour Party organisations inLondon and to the local branches of the trade unions. Asa result, 31 trade unions and several Labour Partyorganisations joined in the demonstration, at which

100,000 were present. This demonstration was a highevent for England, especially if we bear in mind the factthat on May 5, a Sunday, only 5,000 turned up at ameeting in Hyde Park to celebrate May-Day, which wascalled by the Labour Party and the reformist trade unions.

Recently a Bill was passed in the House of Commons

whereby the unemployment benefits of certain categoriesof the unemployment benefits of certain categories of theunemployed were reduced by 30-50 percent., and thelocal authorities deprived of the right to give relief. Before,relief was given exclusively by the local authorities, andas the labour Party had a majority in many of them, theywere compelled under pressure from the workers to payout relief from their funds in even larger sums than was

permitted by law. If any worker was unfairly cut off fromrelief he went to the local authorities, made a row there,and was again included in the list. According to the newlaw, the local authorities no longer have the right to giverelief to the unemployed. For this purpose special officialshave been appointed to see that the new law is put intopractice.

When this law was put into force it caused tremendous


52/74

51unrest among the unemployed and employed workers.

The Communist Party of Great Britain issued sloganscalling for the organisation of demonstrations andprotests in parliament through M.P.s, and other measuresof bringing pressure to bear upon the authorities. Theslogans of the Communist Party and the efforts of thelocal party organisations coincided with the strong,spontaneous movement of the workers, and immediatelybrought practical results. The protest movement against

the law assumed wide dimensions. In some placessevere conflicts with the police occurred, and peoplewere injured, which is comparatively rare in England. Asa result of the workers demand the Government wascompelled to refund the deductions already made.

The leaders of the Labour Party and of the trade unions

did not take part in this movement, as though it were nobusiness of theirs.

Thus a small party can obtain influence if it opportunelyand skilfully puts forward the questions that are troublingthe workers, and works energetically to get theirdemands carried out.

The Communist Party of Great Britain has also increasedits work inside the reformist trade unions. In England thetrade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party on acollective basis. The growth of the influence of our partyand the fact that it has won some positions in theelections to the reformist trade unions has inspired thereformist trade union leadership to publish a BlackCircular in which it is proposed that Communists shouldnot be elected to official positions. In several trades


53/74

52councils protests were organised against this circular, the

reason given being that the trade union members arebeing deprived of their democratic rights. But the struggleagainst the circular is still going on and it is difficult to saywhether the reformist leaders will withdraw the circular orwhether they will begin to expel the Communists from thetrades councils.

The Black Circular was discussed and rejected at the

national congresses of the Amalgamated EngineeringUnion, the National Union of Clerks, etc. The question willbe the subject of discussion at the Trades UnionCongress.

In any case, the Communists are on the right road andare pursuing a correct line. The united front tactics are

helping the Communist Party in this respect.

U.S.A. In the U.S.A. all the proposals made by theCommunist Party for the establishment of a united frontagainst the capitalist offensive, against war and fascism,have been rejected by the leaders of the Socialist Partyunder various pretexts. But in spite of the fact that theunited front has not been carried out on a national scale

in America, because of the refusal of the Socialists, it hasbeen established in many localities between theCommunist and Socialist organisations, between the twotrade union organisations. Thus in the strike of docklabourers and transport workers, and then in the generalstrike in San Francisco in July, 1934, the united front,organised at the initiative of the Communist Party of the

U.S.A., played a big role.


54/74

53An agreement on the united front was concluded on the

question of the release of the Scottsboro prisoners

The National Congress of Unemployed in Washington inJanuary, 1935, was the result of the application of unitedfront tactics; 2,500 delegates elected by workersorganisations took part, and 307 delegates elected bylocal and district trade union councils were present, ofwhom 50 were members of the Socialist Party. This

Congress confirmed the Unemployment Bill, drawn up bythe Communist Party of the U.S.A. and supported by over2,000 local, district, and regional trade unionorganisations and trades councils. These 50 delegatespublished a manifesto on the need for the establishmentof the united front. Influenced by the unanimity andstrength of this Congress, the leaders of the Socialist

Party were forced to call a congress of unemployed,supporters of the Socialist Party, which decided tosupport the Unemployment Insurance Bill.

At a conference convened by the Communist Party onthe question of the May-Day celebrations in 1935,numerous, local organisations of the trade unions,affiliated to the American Federation of Labour were

represented. This also led to the participation of Social-Democratic organisations in the joint May-Daydemonstrations in several towns. Thus, in Cleveland andMassachusetts, joint demonstrations of Communists andSocialists took place. In the town of Gary, one of thebiggest centres of the steel industry, the Metal WorkersUnion, affiliated to the A.F. of L., made a proposal to theSocialist Party to demonstrate together with theCommunist Party. In Milwaukee, where the mayor is a


55/74

54Socialist, the Socialist demonstration joined forces with

the Communists. In New Jersey four of the central tradeunions took part in the Communist demonstration. In NewYork, where the Socialist Party rejected the Communistparty proposal for a joint demonstration, 200,000participated in that demonstration organised by theCommunists, and 100,000 in that organised by theSocialists.

In just the same way the Communist Party of the U.S.A.has been successful together with the Socialist Partyorganisations in organising and leading some big strikes.Incidentally, during the crisis there were more strikes inAmerica than anywhere else, and they were of a verystubborn, militant character. Cases of strikers being shotwere not infrequent, and in spite of this, quite a number of

strikes were won.

In order to improve the work of the Communist Party inthe trade unions, a number of Red trade unions joinedthe American Federation of Labour, which has grownconsiderably as a result of article 7 (a) of the IndustrialRecovery A

1935 practical experiences united front o. pitanitsky 1935

Documents