CominternCommunismRadekSyndicalismZinoviev

union the which policy our delegates who PAGE FOURTEEN THE CONGRESS, THE C, P, UNIONISM The Communist of February 1, was no provision for such organizations The facts have cited should amply there is an article in which appears in pre revolutionary periods. Comrade prove the contrary: When got the program of the immediately and Radek saw the piont and accepted our the following paragraph: particularly criticized its trades amendments.
clause.
In the credentials commission. To our great sorrow and regret our delegates, Fraina and Stocklitsky, did That favored the policy of split when defended our party against exnot and could not represent our position in the Second Congress of the Communist ting the of and kindred organi clusion, pointed out that this clause International as they defended in our showed the was not fundamental zations, name Communist in its understanding of Communist tactics, This is not true. At one of the sessions Party of America had repudiated at its second convention, and upon which the of the Trade Union Commission, Flynn, and that the if for no other Communist International declared war reason should be recognized by the Interof the favored this policy. national. Comrade Žinoviev asked me the kindred organizations.
policy of splitting the of and In this respect made a ten minute speech against Flynn, met with the well merited severely criticising him and maintaining personally if agreed with the clause on unionism in the program. rebuke of Comrade Radek, who accused that his policy would ruin our movement them of hypocrisy. That our party was to some extent discredited at the Second In one of my speeches in the Congress naturally and immediately answered no.
Zinoviev said that acceptance of the trades World Congress of the Communist Inter said. To adopt the slogan, Break the union decisions of the Congress must be national is not altogether our fault; our F. of is to break, not the of made a fundamental condition of unity.
delegates were out of touch with the but the American Communist movelatest developments in our party and agreed.
ment.
were elected by the September First Con6. That attitude vention; our program, which was adopted my on unionism Commission did argue in the for at our second convention, before the posi doubtless influenced the Communist Intion taken by Frains and Stocklitsky on broadening the conditions under which ternational decision to force immediate the question of participation in the reacsplits may be permitted, and also new tionary trade unions, was not the posiunity.
tion of the which was misrepreunions organized; and at the end Radek and were in agreement. Moreover, Radek Nothing of the sort.
When arrived sented by our deegates. The Communist International, judging us by our delegates, in the Congress declared that considring in Moscow found that the Executive misrepresented us, saw no difference the majority of the workers in the United Committee was absolutely convinced that between the views of our delegates and States are not in the unions, special prothere must be unity in the American Comthe delegates of the and this doubtless influenced the Communist Inter blems were created for the American munist movement, and that nothing would national decision to force immediate comrades not covered in his theses. change this conviction. Comrade Andrew unity.
tried, slightly, and no attention was paid That was rebuked by Radek and If these charges were true, they would to his arguments.
The decision of the accused of hypocrisy: seriously compromise Stocklitsky and myCommunist International for unity comes self. But they are not true, as the steno Comrade Radek never did anything of comes out of the general policy of the graphic report of the Congress discussion the sort. This rebuke was given to some International and out of the conviction on unionism will prove of the other delegates In fact, in the that the struggle between the two parties Congress Radek, while reporting for the is demoralizing our movement.
It is a simple question of facts. And Trades Union Commission, admitted that this matter in complete agreement with the facts are these, on each particular Murphy and Fraina did make some con the International point: structive proposals. Murphy and I do not know on what evidence the That, on the question of partici worked together on the union question editor of The Communist wrote as he did, pation in the reactionary trade unions, the industrialist but surely it was not after knowing the misrepresented our party (I say begroup, being Communists and not Syndi facts as contained in the stenographic cause Stocklitsky took no part whatever calists. report of the Congress. Early in October in the public discussion on unionism. That to some extent discredited mailed my two speeches to the party The implication is that opposed partiour party by my attitude on unionism. from Moscow, but while they arrived in cipation in the trade unions. When left Consider the facts: In discrediting the script never reached the But New York, for some reason the manuthe United States, this was partly true, party would necessarily discredit myself. for this am not responsible.
a relic of my training. But my But was appointed on a Council of observations in England and particularly Three to organize the whoe trades union Superficially, was identified with the in Germany prepared me to accept the work in America. and wrote the instruc Industrialist group, but the report will views of the Russian comrades in favor of tions to this Council, which were accepted show that my arguments were sharply difparticipation, which did within a week with one very slight change by the Proferent from theirs. There was some conoi my arrival in Moscow. In the Com visional Executive of the Red Labor In fusion on this matter; for example, the mission on Trades Unionism consistently ternational.
report states that the American delegaspoke in favor of participation. At the did discredit myself with the union theses, whereas in fact this means tion abstained from voting on the trades Congress, in my two speeches on unionism, emphasized, on the basis of Ameridelegates. Flynn, MacAlpine and Reed the alone, and not Stocklitsky can experience and requirements, the newent around saying that knew nothing and myself.
cessity of participation in the trade unions.
about American conditions, and that my These are the facts.
accepting the theses would ruin the AmeThe theses on unionism, in my opinion, rican movement. Does the editor of The There were some differences concerning Communist agree with the deleare fundamentally sound; and their insistence on participation in the character of participation, concerned gates?
the trade unions absolutely unassailable. do have with extra union organizations, such as That there was no difference (or it incorporated in the theses; but these have some criticisms; did propose ideas not Shop Committees, Shop Stewards, etc. In appeared so to the Russian comrades)
Radek original theses, based upon the between my views on unionism and those absolutely nothing to do with the criticism German and Russian experience, there of the C. delegates, in The Communist (which is one of facts and not ideas) and shall if granted the am on