t.
Page THE MILITANT January 15. 1929.
CONTINUED FROM LAST ISSUE Revolutionary patriotism can be only of a class character. It begins as patriotism to the party or ganization, to the trade union, and rises to nationr a1 patriotism when the proletariat has captured power. Wherever the workers have power patriot!
ism is a revolutionary duty. But that patriotism must be an inseparable part of revolutionary internationalism. The invincible conviction that the main class aim even less so than partial aims cane not be realised by national means or within na tional boundaries, constitutes the heart of revolur tionary internationalism. If, however, the final aim has been realised within national boundaries. by the efforts of a national proletariat then the backbone of internationalism has been broken. The theory of the possibility to realize socialism in one country destroys the inner connection of the pa!
triotism of the victorious proletariat with the dee featism of the proletariat of the bourgeois coun tries. The proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries is still on the road to power. How and in what manner it will march towards it depends fully and entirely on the question as to whether it considers the building up of socialist society a national or an international task.
If it is at all possible to realise socialism in one country then one can believe in that theory not only AFTER the conquest of power but also prior to it. If socialism can be realised within the national boundaries of backward Russia, then there is the more reason to believe that it can be realised in advanced Germany. Tomorrow the leaders of the Communist Party of Germany will surely bring forward this theory, The Draft Pro gram empowers them to do so. The day after to morrow the Fench Party will have its turn. That will be the beginning of the downfall of the Com: intern along the lines of social patriotism. The Communist Party of any capitalist country which will have become imbued with the idea that its particular country possesses all the necessary and sufficient prerequisites for the independent con struction of a complete socialist society will in substance in no respect differ from the revolution!
ary social democrats who also began not with Noske but who definitely stumbled on August 4, 1914, on this very same question.
If they say that the very existence of the is a guarantee against social patriotism be cause in relation to a Workers Republic patriot ism is a revolutionary duty, in this onersided utili zation of a correct idea is expressed national nfi. rowmindedness. Those who say so have in mind only the closing their eyes to the entire proletariat of the world. To lead the proletariat to the idea of defeatism in relation to the bour geois State is possible only by an international orientation in the program on the main question and by a merciless resistance to social patriotic cont traband which is now still masked but which seeks to establish a theoretical nest for itself in the prev gram of Lenin International.
It is not yet too late to return to the path of Marx and Lenin. It is this return that opens up the only conceivable road to progress. To bring about this safety turn we address this criticism of the draft program to the Sixth Congress of the Comintern.
The results and proxpect: of the Chinese Revolutionviti lessonx for the Eart ern countries and for the whole of the Comintern Bolshevism and Menshevism and the left wing of German and international social democracy took definite shape on the analysis of the experiences, mistakes and tendencies of the 1905 revolution; An analysis of the experiences of the Chinese Ree volution is now of no less importance for the international proletariat.
This analysis, however, has not yet even be gun it is prohibited. The official literature gives hurried arrangements of facts to suit the re)
solutions of the C, C:I. the baselessness of which has been thoroughly revealed. The draft program cuts down the sharpest points of the Chinese prob lem, but, in the main, perpetuates the destructive line of the on the Chinese question, In stead of an analysis of the greatest historical prO cess, we find a literary defence of the bankrupt schemes. CRITICISM 0F FUNDAMENTA LS By TRQTSKY ON THE NATURE OF THE COLONIAL BOURGEOISIE The draft program says. Temporary agreements (with the bourgeoisie. may be made only insofar as they will not hamper the revolutionary organization of the workers and peasants and are genuinely fighting against imperi»
alism.
This loose statement is based on a recognition of the ability of the colonial bourgeoisie TO WAGE REAL struggle against imperialism and at the same time NOT TO INTERFERE WITH, THE REVOLUTIONARY ORGANISATION of the workers and peasants. This is a defense and sanctioning of the entire policy in relation to the Kuomintang which the always interpreted as a temporary agreement whilst it was in realie ty a political enslavement of the proletariat to the bourgeoisie, To have a clear understanding of the statement quoted above we will quote an eval»
uation of the colonial bourgeoisie given by Bo, charin, one of the authors of the draft. Basing himself on the antirimperialist content of the colonial revolutions, Bucharin said. The liberal bourgeoisie in China has in the course of years. and not months, played an objective rel volutionary role, and then it has exhausted itself.
That was not at all a one day policy of the type of the Russian liberal revolution of 1907. Everything here is wrong from the beginning to end.
Lenin really insisted that one must strictly dis tinguish between an oppressed and oppressor bourr geois nation, From this arise the verylimportant advantages, for instance, in relation to war between an imperialist and a colonial country. For a pacifist such a war is a war as any other; for a Communist a war of a colonial nation against an imperialist nation is a bourgeois revolutionary war. Lenin thus RAISED the national liberation movement, the colonial insurrectiono and wars of the oppressed nations, to the level of the bourgeois democratic revolutions, particularly of the period prior to the Russian revolution of 1905. But Lenin did not at all rank the national liberation wars ABOVE bourgeois democratic revolutions as this is now done by Bucharin, who has turned an angle of 180 degrees. Lenin insisted on a distinction between a a bourgeois oppressed and bourgeois oppressor country. But Lenin nowhere raised and never could raise the question from the viewpoint that the bourgeoisie of a colonial or a semi colonial country in an epoch of struggle for national libera»
tion must be more progressive and more revolutione ary than the bourgeoisie of a nonecolonial coune try in the epoch of the democratic revolution.
Theoretically this does not follow from anything, historically this is not confirmed. No matter how pitiful, for instance, Russian liberalism appeared to be, and no matter how much of a hybrid its left half petty bourgeois democracy, the Social Ree volutionaries and Mensheviks appeared to be it is hardly possible to say that Chinese liberation and Chinese bourgeois democracy proved to be on a higher level or more revolutionary than the Ruse tian.
To conceive that from the fact of colonial ope pression there must inevitably arise a revolutionary national bourgeoisie means to imitate the main error of Menshevism which held that the Russian bourgeoisie must be revolutionary because of the autocratic feudal yoke.
The question of the nature and policy of the bourgeoisie is determined by the entire internal class structure of a nation waging the revolutionary struggle; the historical epoch in which that strugl gle develops; the degree of economic, political and military dependence of the national bourgeoisie upon world imperialism in its entirety or upon one of its parts; and, finally, which is the most imv portant, the degree of class activity of the native proletariat and the state of its connections with the inernational revolutionary movement.
The democratic or national liberation revolution may promise the bourgeoisie an opportunity to deepen and broaden its chance for exploitation. In?
dependent action of the proletariat on the revolu»
tionary arena threatens to deprive the bourgeoisie The Draft Program of the Comintern of the possibility to exploit altogether.
Let us look at some facts, The present inspirers of the Comintern have on!
tiringly repeated that Chiang Kai shek waged a war against imperialism whilst Kerensky marched hand in hand with the imperialists and that hence it was necessary to wage an irreconciliable struggle against Kerensky, while it was necessary to support.
Chiang Kaieshek.
Kerensky relations with imperialism cannot be disputed. One can go even still further back and point out that the Russian bourgeoisie overthrew Nicholas II with the sanction of the British and French imperialism. Not only Miliukov and Keren sky supported the war waged by Lloyd George and Poincare, but Lloyd George and Poincare sup ported Miliukov and Kerensky revolution against the czar, and later against the workers and peasants. Of this there can be absolutely no doubt.
But how do matters stand in this connection in China? The February revolution in China took place in 1911. That revolution was a great and progressive event although it was accomplished with the direct participation of the imperialists.
Sun Yat Sen, in his memoirs, relates how his or ganisation relied in all its work on the support of the imperialist States either Japan, France or America, If Kerensky in 1917 continued to take part in the imperialist war, the Chinese bourgeoisie, the national. revolutionary etc. bourgeoisie, supported Wilson intervention in the war with the hope that the Entente would help to emancie pate China. In 1918 Sun Yat Sen addressed to the governments of the Entente his project of econ; omic development and political emancipation of China. There is no occasion for saying that the Chinese bourgeoisie in its struggle against the Man»
chu Dynasty, displayed any higher revolutionary qualities than the Russian bourgeoisie in the strugl gle against czarism or that there is a fundamental difference between Chiang Kaieshek and Kerenr sky attitude to imperialism.
But Chiang Kai shek, says the neverr theless fought against imperialism. To imagine this means to see facts in too brilliant a light. Chiang Kaieshek waged war against the Chinese militare ists, the agents of ONE of the imperialist powers.
This is not quite the same as to wage a war against imperialism. Even Tang Pinesan understood this, In his report to the Seventh Plenum of thes EC.
CI. it was at the end of 1926) Tang Pin san characterised the policy of the Kuomintang center headed by Chiang Kai«shek as follows. In the sphere of international policy it occupies a passive position in the full meaning of that word.
It is inclined to fight only against British imperialism; so far as the Japanese imperialists, however, are concerned, it is under certain conditions ready to make a compromise with them. Stenographic Report at the Seventh Plenum. e The attitude of the Kuomintang to imperialism was from the very outset not revolutionary but opportunistic through and through. It endeavored to drive out the agents of some imperialist powers so as to compromise later with the same or other imperialist. powers on more favorable terms for the Chinese bourgeoisie. That is all. One must measure not the attitude of every given national bourgeoisie to imperialism in general, but its atti»
tude to the immediate historical tasks of the re»
spective nation. The Russian bourgeoisie was a bourgeoisie of amimperialist oppressor nation. The Chinese bourgeoisie a bourgeoisie of an oppressed colonial country. The overthrow of feudal czarr ism was a progressive task in old Russia. The over throw of the imperialist yoke is a progressive his torical mission in China. But the attitude of the Chinese bourgeoisie in relation to imperialism, the proletariat and the peasantry, was not more revo lutionary than that of the Russian, but, if you wish, even more vile and reactionary.
TO BE CONTINUED CABARET AND DANCE Arranged by the Proletarian Dramatic Club for the benefit of H M L T N and H P O E A Organs of the Communist Opposition Saturday Evening, January 26, 1929 at 323 East 79th Street, New York Tickets in advance 50c. At the door 60c. i L.
January 7, 1929.
THE MILITANT Page Lenin Last Words to the Party The Testament of Lenin Sent to the Central Committee of the Com munixt Party and Suppressed by the Stalin Regime. the stability of the Central Committee, of which spoke before, mean measures to prevent a split, so far as such measures can be taken, For, of course, the White Guard in Russr kaya Mysl. think it was Oldenburg) was right when, in the first place, in his play against Soviet Russia he banked on the hope of a split in our party, and when, in the second place, he banked for that split on serious disagreements in our party. Our party rests upon two classes, and for that reason its instability is possible, and if there cane not exist an agreement between those classes its fall is inevitable. In such an event it would be useless to take any measures or in general to disr cuss the stability of our Central Committee. In such an event no measures would prove capable of preventing a split, But trust that is too remote a future, and too improbable an event, to talk about. have in mind stability as a guarantee againsl a split in the near future, and intend to examine here a series of considerations of a purely personal character. think that the fundamental factor in the mat ter of stability from this point of viewiis such members of the Central Committee as Stalin and Trotsky. The relation between them constitutes, in my opinion, a big half of the danger of that split, which might be avoided, and the avoidance of which might be promoted, in my opinion, by ralS ing the number of members of the Central Come mittee to fifty or one hundred. Comrade Stalin, having become General Secree tary, has concentrated an enormous power in his hands; and am not sure that he always knows how to use that power with sufficient catuion.
On the other hand Comrade Trotsky, as was proved by his struggle against the Central Com mittee in connection with the question of the Peoe ple Commissariat of Ways of Communication, is distinguished not only by his exceptional abili»
tiesipersonally he is, to be sure, the most able man in the present Central Committe. but also by his too far reaching selflconfidence and a dis position to be too much attracted by the purely administrative side of affairs. These two qualities of the two most able leadv ers of the present Central Committee might, quite innocently, lead to a split; if our party does not take measures to prevent it, a split might arise un expectedly. will not further characterize the other meme bers of the Central Committee as to their personal qualities. will only remind you that the OctOr ber episode of Zinoviev and Kamenev was not, of course, accidental, but that it ought as little. to be used against them personally as the nonaBolshevr ism of Trotsky. Of the younger members of the Central Com, mittee, want to say a few words about Bucharin and Piatakov. They are, in my opinion, the most able forces (among the youngest. and in regard to them it is necessary to bear in mind the fol»
lowing: Bucharin is not only the most valuable and biggest theoretician of the Party, but also may legitimately be considered the favorite of the whole party; but his theoretical views can only with the very greatest doubt be regarded as fully Marxist, for there is something scholastic in him (he never has learned, and think never has fully understood, the dialetic. And then Piatakov a man undoubtedly dis, tinguished in will and ability, but too much given over to administration and the administrative side of things to be relied on in a serious political quese thn. Of course, both these remarks are made by me merely with a view of the present time, or suppos ing that these two able and loyal workers may not find an occasion to supplement their knowledge and correct their oneesidedness. December, 25, 1922. Postscript: Stalin is too rude, and this fault, en!
tirely supportable in relations among us Commur ists, becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, propose to the Comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man who in all respects difers from Stalin only in superiority namely, more patient, more loyal, more polite and more attentive to comrades, less capricous, etc. This ciru cumstance may seem an insignificant trifle, but think that from the point of view of preventing a split and from the point of View of the relae tion between Stalin and Trotsky which discusr sed above, it is not a trifle, or it is such a trifle as may acquire a decisive significant. LENIN. Jan. 4, 1923.
The New eedle Trades Workers Union HE recent formation of the new Needle Trades Industrial Union marks a turning pomt in the protracted struggle in the needle trades and IS a. step of great historic significance for the American labor movement as a whole. The policy of organize ing the unorganized into new unions, of answer, ing the destruction of the old unions by the bosses and the reactionaries with the formation of new unions under left wing leadership, will be given here its test of fire, Under the present conditions and relation of forces the prerequisites for the success of this polir cy are greater in the Needle Trades than in any other industry. It is there that the party and left wing have the broadest and most conscrous sup port of the working masses, the product of the advanced class consciousness of these workers and of the active leadership of the Party and left wing in mighty struggles. It is in the needle trades also that the treason and the bankruptcy of not only the oldrline reactionaries, but of the so»called socialist labor leaders has been most clearly do monstrated in practice. The left wing has shown itself to the masses here as the sole leader and or; ganizer of the daily struggle as well as the herald of the coming fight for liberation from the yoke of capitalism. The Needle Trade Industrial Union faces the gigantic task of building anew on the ruins of the old organizations. It was the destruction of the old unions in the Fur and Ladies Garment trades which placed the formation of the new union Cate»
gorically on the agenda. This destruction was ac»
complished by the united front of the Bosses, the F, of L, the police and the Socialist betrayers.
The smashing of the once powerful Furriers Union and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, the loss of union standards, the intensified exploitation and the general worsening of the lot of the workers are the direct fruit of this reace tionary united front. The unceasing exposition of this incontestable fact is one of the most necesr sary phases of the task of building the new union, An accessory cause of the setbacks the workers received and of the failure of the left wing to deal heavier and more decisive blows to the bosses and their labor agents has been the stubborn oppor tunism, the illusions and vacillations of the left wing leaders. The stratum of this leadership, Gold, Zimmerman, Wortis, etc, constitute a faction whose practices have been a constant obstacle to the development and execution of a fighting Come munist policy which alone is able to mobilize the fur resources of the masses for their struggle. All most every opportunist prejudice from craft union conceptions to the theory that a struggle cannot be carried on against the bosses and the right wing leaders at the same time, from a complete misapr prehension of the class role of the police (to speak mildly. to illusions regarding deals with this or that group of fakers, has found expression in the course of this faction of leaders. To this can be added the survivals of odious trade union bureau cratic and business agent relations with the rank and file. The struggle for a true Communist poli cy the only fighting policy was and is a struggle against the tactics and policies of this group.
The formation of the New Union is late. It Was indicated by the whole situation months ago. The delay was due solely to the conservatism of the Party leaders in the needle trades in which, as in all their costly opportunist blunders. they were fule lv supported by the opportunist leadership of the Party which turned the whole control over to them in a conscienceless factional bargain, entrenched them in every wav. shielded them from cri ticism and stifled the opposition movement of the rank and file Communist fighters in the needle trades. The amalgamation of the two left wing unions and the formation of the new union was forced upon them by the Onnosition in which fioht we had a united front with the Foster vrmm. The nartv leadership. of which the faction of Gold and Zimmerman are the trade union renresentatives.
resistedi held back and sabotafierl to the last, It was only the unceasing fidht of the combined on position. the correctness of which was being proven by events. which brorivht about the amalfiama tion and the organization of the new union even at this late day.
The workers will pay for this delay as they have to pay for every opportunist error of leadership.
The new union begins its career with handicaps and difficulties that might have been avoided.
These handicaps. however. can soon be over come by a vinorous nnlirv in the ensuina period The step taken is an indubitablv correct one. Ine deed. it was the onlv sten consistent with a firrhtr an policy under Given circumstances, Bv it. the heroic workers of the needle trades who have written glorious pages of labor hitsorv in the recent vears. again attract the attention of the labor moyevment as a whole, The conscious workers thrmiohout the entire rnrmtrv look to them aoain nmvp that rlw lofi» min i: mn nm klp that it is glalo rum rho risers unfinn nf Aw nlrl nninnc into a reiuvenated movement on a sounder basis. Their victory in the great battle to establish their new union will be a victory for the American working class and will have a great effect on its future.
There is no need to minimize the enormous dife ficulties in their path, Communist policy will enable the left wing to triumph over them. The bosses will fight them by every means: therefore an education of the masses on the class role of the police, a mobilization of the masses against them and a ruthless war on all illusions about them, The right wing socialist fakers will fight them: there fore an unceasing exposure of their hypocritical peace manoevres, and an education of the masses to hate and distrust them as agents of the bosses.
Every conscious worker must support the new Needle Trades Industrial Union with all his strength This means for the Communist mili»
tants within the union a twofold task: on the one hand to fight in the vanguard of the Union against the employers and their labor agents; on the other hand to firmly organize the forces of the Communr ist left wing within the Party fraction and thereby irresistibly steer the new union on the path of rivolutionary tactics in all its activities and strug es.
Appeal to the Convention New York, January 12, 1928.
To the Central Executive Committee, Workers (Communist) Party of America Comrades: We hereby send you notice of our intention to appeal to the forthcoming Convention of the Party against the expulsion of all the comrades standing on the Platform of the Opposition.
We desire to appear personally at the Convene tion to present our Appeal. This is in accordance with the Party Constitution and with the estab lished practices and traditions of the movement.
The decision of the Political Committee on our ex pulsion recognized this right. Even the trades union bureaucracy, whose expulsion methods you have copied, have also recognized the right of ex pelled members to present their appeals in person to the Conventions, case in point is the recent Convention of the Carpenters Union where come rade Rosen was given the floor to appeal against his expulsion.
Please notify us of the time and place of the Convention sessions where our appeal will be heard, James P, Cannon.
Arne Swabeck Martin Abern. Max Shachtman