A fascinating report on the refounding of the Palestine Arab Workers Society in the aftermath of 1929’s ‘Buraq Revolution’ and the role of the Palestine Communist Party as it reorients itself to Palestinian workers and the Arab national movement. Meeting on January 11, 1930 at the headquarters of the Islamic Youth Society in Jaffa, the congress was attended by 61 delegates from Haifa, Jerusalem, Jaffa, Acre, Nazareth, Lydda, and Shafa ‘Amr representing 3,020 workers.

‘The First Arab Workers’ Congress in Palestine and the Anti-Imperialist Fight in the Arab Countries’ by Nadab from Communist International. Vol. 7 No. 5. May 1, 1930.

ON August 23rd, 1929, an anti-imperialist rising broke out in Palestine -on January 11th, 1930, the first Arab Workers’ Congress met at Haifa. There is a close inner connection between these two events. Without the August rising, the Congress would not have taken place; the Congress, in turn, will greatly influence the further development of the class and anti-imperialist struggle in Palestine. And not only in Palestine. This small British colony is strongly linked up with the Levant, Syria, Irak, Egypt-a connection which found expression tumultuously during the time of the August rising. It is for this reason that the Congress deserves the special attention of the international revolutionary working-class. It must be appreciated not as a local Palestinian affair, but as an important new turn, the beginning of a new stage in the anti-imperialist struggle of the working and peasant masses in the Arab countries.

1. THE WORKERS’ CONDITIONS AND THE LABOUR MOVEMENT IN THE ARAB COUNTRIES.

In all the Arab countries enumerated (except Egypt) capitalism began to develop comparatively recently. In all these countries, the feudal elements in economy are very marked. The Arab working-class is very young. The largest group among them consists of agricultural labourers. The industrial proletariat is poorly developed, and is strongly connected (as indeed are all urban workers) with the peasantry. Under pressure of imperialist and capitalist landowning exploitation, the Arab peasants rapidly become pauperised and flock to the towns in search of work. Industry, the development of which is retarded by imperialism, is unable to absorb any considerable section of the “surplus” village population. The reserve army of labour in the Arab countries is tremendous. All these factors taken together have led to the extremely serious economic position of the Arab workers, who have grown considerably in numbers, particularly since the war.

Before the war, trade unions were practically non-existent in the Arab countries, with the exception of some purely craft-unions. After the war, under the influence of the revolutionary crisis, the organisation of unions was commenced in Egypt and later in Syriaand Palestine. It is natural that the strongest unions were formed in Egypt, where in 1921, a congress of revolutionary unions was held which formed a confederation embracing several score thousands of workers. This confederation, which grew up on the crest of a revolutionary wave, but which had neither trade union cadres, nor a politically mature leadership (the Egyptian Communist Party was then very weak) soon fell to pieces (1924). It was replaced by yellow unions which were completely in the hands of the Egyptian bourgeoisie- tobacco workers, textile workers, tramwaymen and dockers. The Syrian workers commenced organising later than the Egyptian, although a First of May strike was organised in Beyrut as far back as in 1913. The Syrian trade unions (tobacco workers, printers and motordrivers) are numerically weak, have never conducted a militant policy and are now led by national-reformist elements. The trade unions are made use of by the Syrian bourgeoisie. In Palestine in 1923-1924 the big capitalists organised a so-called “Arab Workers’ Party of Nablus,” in 1924, a “Union of Arab Workers in Haifa” was formed, and in 1927 Unions of Printers and Porters. The Palestine Arab Workers’ organisations were much weaker even than the Syrian. They did not endure for long and made themselves felt very little. By the time of the Congress both the organisation in Nablus, as also the unions of printers and porters formed by the Palestinian C.P., had collapsed.

Despite the absence of trade union organisations, or their extreme feebleness and opportunism, strikes have broken out relatively frequently in the Arab countries during recent years. They have taken place spontaneously, have generally been leaderless, or under the lead of national-reformists, and in the majority of cases have ended in defeat or in compromise unfavourable for the workers. A number of these strike”, particularly in Egypt, have been very turbulent and accompanied by serious collisions with the police. These spontaneous class fights showed the fighting qualities of the workers, and also the absence of any organisation whatever capable of a struggle. The formation of independent class trade unions by the weak Communist Parties of Egypt, Syria and Palestine, which are working under exceedingly hard conditions, was a very difficult matter, and only just lately has the Palestine C.P. attained certain successes in this direction.

2. THE ARAB WORKING MASSES AND THE NATIONAL REVOLUTION.

The Arab workers have participated in revolutionary anti-imperialist fights, but not as an independent organised force, merely as an amorphous mass spontaneously following the leadership of another class.

Neither in the revolutionary movement in Irak in 1920-1922, in Palestine in 1919-1926, nor during the Syrian revolution of 1925-1927, did the Arab workers take action as an independent factor. Whereas the peasants’ demands did find a reflection-even if distorted-in the demands put forward by the nationalists, the workers’ demands were not only hushed up by the nationalists, but were not even put forward by the workers themselves. That the workers were absolutely not class-conscious was indeed the characteristic feature in the epoch of anti-imperialist struggles of 1919-1927. In those yelfrs the militant and rebellious masses were led by bourgeois (Egypt) or bourgeois-feudal (Syria, lrak, Palestine) groups, while any noticeable workers’ organisation was completely lacking. And it should be observed that the bourgeois-feudal groups made excellent use of the working masses, getting them to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the capitalists.

Various bourgeois parties took well into account the utility they could derive from the political exploitation of the proletariat. For instance, after the Mohamed Mahmud coup d’état in Egypt, the dictator made it widely known to the workers that reforms were imminent: workers’ housing, labour legislation, sanitary assistance; Not a single one of these promises was kept. Mahomed Mahmud hoped, by means of promises and solemn gestures alone, to draw away from the Wafd the organisations existing in Egypt, and if not to win them to his side, at least to neutralise them.

Since 1925-1927 (in some countries earlier, in others later) the Arab’ bourgeoisie has taken an open course for rapprochement with imperialism, The Egyptian Wafd, which has never been a revolutionary party, has taken the course of a definite agreement with England. The Palestine Arab Executive Committee since 1926 has practically renounced the slogan of “noncooperation,” the leading Syrian bourgeois-feudal circles, after the defeat of the rising, made every effort to attain peace. The reasons that led the nationalists to take this national-reformist course are: (1) a study of the Chinese experience, (2) the fear of arousing and bringing into action their own workers and peasants, (3) certain economic bribes and political promises held out by the imperialists.

However, the deal between the national bourgeoisie and feudal elements and the imperialists does not by any means signify a modification of the actual contradictions between the basic mass of the colonial population and the imperialists. Quite the contrary. The rapprochement of the Arab bourgeois-landowning classes with imperialism is undoubtedly a proof of a further sharpening of these contradictions. At the present time, after the occurrence of an American crisis attaining a world-wide scale, after an accentuated agrarian crisis, after revolutionary upheavals in a number of colonies, there can be no doubt that a new rise of the revolutionary wave in the colonies has started.

Who will assume the leadership of this rising tide? Only sheer opportunists could place any hopes in the revolutionary capacity of the bourgeoisie. Then perhaps the petty-bourgeoisie (above all, the intelligentsia)-as represented by the various Left radical groups, will lead the masses in the fight?

As far as the Arab countries are concerned, the weakness of the so-called “Left” nationalist groupings, and their extreme lack of independence, is a very striking phenomenon. In Egypt, in spite of an exceedingly acute political situation, in spite of a fairly well-developed political differentiation, in spite of the absolute treachery of the “Wafd” -there is no “Left” nationalist Party capable of fighting. The “National Party,” which pretends to the title “extreme left” is a lifeless sect; it is led by feudal elements. During the dictatorship of Mohamed Mahmud it completely disgraced itself by carrying on intrigues behind the scenes with the British puppets.

In Palestine the “Left” nationalist group of Hamvi-Hussedin, whose role has been of some significance in the anti-imperialist struggle, is organisationally weak. In Syria and Irak, as also in Trans-Jordania, the “Left” nationalists constitute a kind of feudal aristocracy. (In Transjordania, the most backward of these countries, the feudal aristocracy has been somewhat late in its evolution from “non-cooperation” to complete collaboration with imperialism.)

This extreme weakness, this lack of independence, this tendency to drag at the tail, shown by the “Left” nationalists in the Arab countries is not an accidental phenomenon. Its causes are to be found in the social origin of the national intelligentsia who constitute the leading cadre of the petty bourgeois radical elements. In the Arab countries, (at any rate in Syria, Irak, etc.) the intelligentsia come from the declassed impoverished aristocracy. To this very day this aristocratic intelligentsia is bound by family ties to the feudal landowners, they are still proprietors of small plots of land which they lease out to the fellahin; the impoverished intelligentsia are often connected with the big landowners by means of a joint family “Vakuf.” All these factors taken together, plus the fact that the most important intellectual profession is a post in the imperialist civil service, has caused the petty-bourgeois radical movement in the Arab countries to be extremely sparse, timid, lacking in independence, incapable of leading revolutionary fights.

The sole class, which, owing to its objective position, is capable of occupying a leading place in the revolutionary movement, is the proletariat. But it is not yet subjectively ready for this, its class-consciousness is only now developing. Can the working-class of the Arab countries succeed in organising themselves in time for the revolutionary battles, or even for the first stage of these battles? If they can, the spontaneous rising of millions of fellahin, which approaches nearer every day, can be turned into a victorious revolution; if they cannot, this rising will degenerate into disconnected revolts, with which the imperialists will be able to cope fairly easily. The reply to this question is supplied by the recent events in Palestine- the August rising and the January Workers’ Congress, which is the prelude to powerful revolutionary fights in the Arab countries.

3. THE AUGUST RISING AND THE WORKERS.

The Palestine Arab workers were unprepared for the August rising. At the time of the rising the workers proved to be unorganised and were not politically independent. Consciousness of the necessity for class struggle, a struggle against their own bourgeoisie, of the need for an independent leading action against imperialism, only penetrated into a very small circle of workers. At the time of the rising, the C.P. of Palestine found itself extremely weak, as a result of its national composition, which isolated it from the Arab masses, and its absolute unpreparedness for the insurrection. Moreover, owing to its isolation from the masses (especially the fellahin), and also owing to certain Right errors which it committed, the C.P. of Palestine absolutely failed to foresee the oncoming events, and therefore, while recognising the accentuation of the political situation in general, undertook no concrete steps whatever m connection with the then mature insurrection.

For these reasons, the masses came under the leadership of bourgeois-feudal elements, who set themselves the task of scotching the antiimperialist movement of the fellahin, Bedouins and urban poor, directing it into the channels of an Arab-Jewish national struggle. The counterrevolutionary manoeuvre of the leadership did not succeed. An insurrectionary movement broke out in the country. But the masses, (mainly Bedouins and fellahin) who had risen up were left without a revolutionary leadership and were broken up by the counter-revolutionary bloc of imperialists, Zionists and national-reformists. However, immediately following the defeat of the armed Bedouin-peasant action it became evident that the movement had not ended with this defeat, but had only just commenced. After the ruthless suppression of the rising, there was no social reaction, no passiveness, no apathy on the part of the masses, but an increase in the activity of these masses, new strata being drawn into the movement.

(This is further proof of the fact that the August Rising is not a single “chance” local phenomenon, but was simply the first wave of a rising revolution in the Arab countries.)

The August rising had a particularly profound influence on the Arab workers. The working masses became active and revolutionary. In the light of the rising, not only the political servitude but also the economic exploitation of the workers was more clearly perceived. The intensified social-political activity of the bourgeois-feudal and petty-bourgeois groups, also had a stimulating effect on the working masses. At the same time, the open treachery of the bourgeois-feudal leadership discredited it in the eyes of the working masses, and, in turn, stimulated the workers to organise themselves independently. Thus, whereas the first days of the August rising to a certain extent proceeded along the lines of previous Arab risings (revolutionary fellahin and petty-bourgeois urban masses with a bourgeois- feudal leadership, sooner or later betraying the rising) in the November-January period, a new current in events was to be observed: considerable masses of workers began to break away from the nationalist leadership, sharper class differentiation took place and a tendency manifested itself towards independent organisation.

The Palestine Arab workers, though unable to prepare for the rising, have, since the defeat, begun to overtake events.

4. THE ARAB WORKERS’ CONGRESS.

Only the rising provided the slogan for the convention of an Arab Workers’ Congress with a real meaning and a real basis. The desire for an independent workers’ organisation became so strong that already in December the Haifa national-reformist labour organisation decided to convene a congress. Not only the Palestine workers were informed about this congress, but also the workers of the neighbouring countries. In Palestine a broad preparatory campaign for the congress was started. By means of legal and illegal meetings, trade union manifestoes and personal agitation, fairly wide sections of workers were reached in a number of towns (Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, Lud, Akka, Nazareth) and villages (Ayin-Karem, Beth-Safafa, Yehudiya, Tyre, Shafamir). There were altogether 61 delegates at the congress representing 4,000 to 6,000 Arab workers. The communists took most active part in the voting, and had a fairly strong group at the congress. At the beginning of the congress the nationalists took up a rather benevolent attitude, being sure of their own complete hegemony. The overwhelming majority of the delegates were workers, but at the same time there were several business men and intellectuals present at the congress among the nationalist leaders. A delegation was to have attended from the Syrian trade unions, and was duly elected. The Syrian government, however, refused to grant visas and therefore only two workers who came illegally were present at the congress.

The opening of the congress attracted the attention of the Haifa workers. The hall of the conference was filled with worker visitors, and numbers more who could not be admitted stood in the street. The government permitted the congress only on condition that it remained completely non-political. The congress agenda included the following points: (1) the position of the international working-class and the position of the Palestine workers, (2) discussion and resolutions, (3) elections to the C.C.

From the start of the congress to the finish there was a persistent struggle between the communists and nationalists for influence over the non-party workers. The discussion centred round the following questions: (1) Are political speeches permissible at the congress; (2) attitude towards the Arab bourgeoisie and their demands; (3) eight-hour working day and wage increases; (4) a workers’ newspaper; (5) greetings to the Indian workers. The communists presented a militant political declaration: estimation of the insurrection and the treacherous role of the nationalist-reformists; summons for a struggle, not only against the Balfour declaration (for the creation of a Jewish national home), but in general against the British mandate; for the agrarian revolution; for the necessity of supporting the partisan detachments; for launching the slogan of a workers’ and peasants’ government. The Right-wingers demanded that the communist speaker should not be allowed to proceed, on the grounds that the government had prohibited politics. After prolonged obstruction the political declaration was defeated by a majority of 35 against 22. The nationalists won, but their victory was gained exclusively by means of intimidating the delegates by the prospect of governmental intervention. The feeling of the overwhelming majority of the delegates was undoubtedly in favour of “politics” (politics meant anti-imperialism). When the communist speaker after the voting, ended his speech with the slogan: “Long live the Workers’ and Peasants’ Federation of Arab countries!” the workers replied with triumphant shouts and a storm of applause.

On the second question, the nationalists also succeeded in scoring a partial victory. Although a number of their proposals, aimed at defending the monetary interests of the Arab bourgeoisie, were not carried, they carried their resolutions for the giving of concessions to the Arab capitalists, for proportional distribution of public works, among the Arab and Jewish workers, etc. On the remaining questions the Rights were defeated. To our slogan for an eight-hour day they opposed their demand for a fourteen-hour day “for the strengthening of national industry.” This demand was met by cries of dissent and was rejected. On the question of publishing a workers’ newspaper, the nationalists proposed that the workers’ organisation should simply link up with one of the existing nationalist newspapers. The congress resolved by an overwhelming majority, to start the publication of an independent workers’ newspaper. After heated debates we also carried our proposal for greetings to be sent to the Indian workers, the demand for introducing the political regime for political prisoners, and a protest against the imperialist terror (levies, death sentences, etc.).

In appraising this congress it must be said in general, that the nationalists dominated the congress and gave it a purely national (national–reformist) tendency on all those questions where they were able to hide behind nationalist phraseology, to play on the chauvinist instincts of the delegates, or else to threaten government intervention. But on a whole number of questions, the class significance of which was clear, the revolutionary delegates beat the nationalists. Despite all its defects, the congress is a serious step towards the formation of an independent workers’ organisation. The hope of the nationalists that they would secure for themselves yet one more auxiliary organisation was smashed- and therein lies the great significance of the congress. The creation of an independent workers’ organisation will further accentuate the class differentiation, will spur the proletariat on to a more active economic and political struggle.

5. THE STRUGGLE AFTER THE CONGRESS.

Immediately following the congress a fierce struggle began around the workers’ organisation. The Arab nationalists understood that the further development of the union along the lines proposed at the congress augured great danger for them.

In the nationalist press a campaign was started against the congress and against the Central Committee of the Arab workers’ organisation elected there. “The Congress was dominated by the communists” was the slogan beneath which they started their campaign of slander. The congress was also pictured as an implement of Jewish nationalism. Wildest of all were the “Left” nationalists who sensed the direct danger.

The Zionists were also on the alert. They tried to discredit the congress in the eyes of the Jewish workers as being a scheme of the Arab nationalist reactionaries, while they informed the government that “the hand of Moscow was present at the congress.”

Meanwhile, the MacDonald Palestine administration could hardly have been surpassed-even by the Tories! Immediately after the congress it instituted an increased police surveillance, mass searches and arrests “on suspicion.” Eighty workers were dismissed from the government stone quarries, where there had been a live election campaign prior to the congress.

A fight also flared up inside the unions. In order to strengthen their position, the nationalists tried to introduce employers and even policemen into the unions. At the same time they sabotaged the formation of new trade unions and hindered the work of the existing ones. Certain leaders of the reformist trade union executives came to terms with the Zionist trade union bureaucrats who are trying to disintegrate the Arab workers’ organisation. All these attacks from without and within have so far been successfully repulsed by the workers. The congress aroused tremendous enthusiasm among the working masses. Hundreds of new workers have joined the unions. New organisations have been formed in Jaffa, Haifa and Nazareth. Simultaneously, economic action has started: two days after the congress a partial strike (of 120 workers) took place at the big “Mabruk” tobacco factory; in Jerusalem the workers went on strike at big government building jobs. At the government quarry at Aklit one of the dismissed workers shot at an Englishman in charge of the work. The fighting mood of the workers is rising.

The congress also aroused great interest among the Syrian workers. In spite of the slanders of the nationalist newspapers, the representatives of the Syrian workers have intimated that they welcome the Palestine Congress, and intend following in its same footsteps.

As a result of the rising, the Palestine Arab workers are entering the path of organized revolutionary struggle. The workers of Egypt, and possibly of Syria also, in the event of a revolutionary crisis, will adopt this path even more rapidly and determinedly than those of Palestine.

6. TASKS OF THE C.P. OF PALESTINE.

The fairly rapid tempo of organisation of the Arab workers under conditions of an intensified internal struggle-the very acute political situation, the imperialist terror, the increasing revolutionary ferment among the fellahin (beginning of a partisan movement) and the complete treachery of the national reformists-confronts the C.P. of Palestine with extremely important and responsible tasks. It will be sufficient here just to enumerate them: (1) Fight for the organisational strengthening and development of the “Palestine Arab Workers’ Organisation,” (2) drive the employers definitely out of the unions, (3) fight the influence of the national-reformists, particularly the “Left” nationalists, (4) fight for the international unification of Arab and Jewish workers, and against the intrigues and manoeuvres of the Zionist Amsterdamites, (5) bring about an alliance between the workers’ organisation and the impoverished fellahin mass, (6) proceed rapidly to the creation of a trade union federation of the Arab countries.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/ci/vol-7/v07-n05-may-01-1930-CI-riaz-orig.pdf