Palestine Communist Party delegate speech at the Sixth World Congress of the Communist International discussion of the ‘revolutionary movement in the colonies.’ ‘Haidar’ was a name used by S. Averbukh who led the PCP from 1924-9. Originally from Ukraine, he emigrated to Palestine as a member of Poale Zion where he would reject Zionism and join the Communist movement.

‘Revolutionary Movements in the Colonies: Arabian East’ by Haidar (S. Averbukh, Palestine) from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 8 No. 72. October 17, 1928.

Comrades, the Arab problem, the Arabian East, is absent in the theses as well as in the reports on the colonial question.

I believe that since the Indian problem has been put on the order of the day, it is high time to take up the Arabian question. This question is of tremendous importance, because we have here in a relatively small place a large number of important problems and questions concentrated, a number of different types of imperialist policy, and of varieties of colonial bondage. We see here everything from the shameful slavery of the Soudan to the refined form of slavery according to the latest feat of imperialist wisdom, the mandate system.

The force of the revolutionary movement has gone through the following stages. The first period from 1917 to 1922, During that period the imperialist powers are only beginning to frame their plans for the partition and occupation of these countries. During this period we saw an extraordinary growth of the revolutionary movement. The British had to increase their troops in the Iraq to 120,000 men; France had to maintain in Syria an army of 120,000 men, and many thousands of British soldiers were held in reserve in Palestine, Egypt and Soudan. In Egypt there was a strong type of revolution which embraced all the elements of the population “from the fellahin to the family of the khedive”, as it was put by a certain imperialist. In the country districts there were numerous risings and revolts and demonstrations, and the whole series of assassinations during a short period there were 260 successful terrorist acts carried out.

In the Iraq the guerilla warfare took the shape of regular battles in the course of which the British troops sustained over 8,000 casualties.

In Syria we witnessed a whole series of guerilla insurrections which were described as banditism in the official reports of the French general staff.

In Palestine there were Jewish progroms, as the British incited one nation against the other in order to sidetrack the nationalist movement.

In spite of its tremendous power, British imperialism was forced to make some compromises.

The Iraq mandate was annulled and substituted by a “voluntary” treaty; Egypt was declared an “independent country”, while Churchill annulled in the White Book the famous Balfour declaration concerning Palestine. Imperialism capitulated, and the so-called honeymoon of the native national bourgeoisie began. Encouraged by the political concessions obtained, the bourgeoisie gathered its forces, the national economy began to develop, and a rapid growth of capitalism was observed in the provinces, particularly in the domain of agriculture. The whole picture was changed: the old patriarchal feudal order on the land had collapsed, the communal ownership of the land (“Mushaha”) was given up and its place was taken by private ownership. Hand in hand with the development of private ownership in the land, there developed the capitalist forms of agriculture, the concentration of the soil, and the centralisation of the rural economy. A strong process of differentiation began among the fellahin in the villages: there appeared the kulak, a figure hitherto unknown in the village, and by his side the landless agricultural labourer. The old division of the village into “Homullah” (clans) gave place to the new division into classes. The place of the old feuds among the clans, blood vengeance etc., was taken by class antagonism and class conflicts. The countryside began to grow. The middle peasants began to dig up their hoards of gold coins and to purchase live stock, machinery and implements. The capacity of the home market grew, the local industries developed; in short, the capitalist development went on at an accelerated pace. The relations with the imperialists became strained again, and the centre of the nationalist movement was shifted from Central Arabia to the industrial and commercial districts, to Syria, Iraq and Palestine. At the same time a realignment of the forces went on. Instead of the old feudal and tribal divisions there came the new class divisions. As the class character of the society grew, its different manifestations became more and more pronounced. Not only was the bourgeoisie above the old feudal elements as regards culture, but it proved far more tractable and amenable to peaceful negotiations. It was in its ranks that the so-called national reformism emerged and developed.

During that period there was also manifested a second characteristic aspect of the revolutionary movement in these countries: there arose the labour movement. If we draw a comparison between the labour movement of these countries and that of China we are struck by the following facts: in China the working class became active as a class already at the outset of the revolutionary movement (the Northern expedition, the Shanghai revolt), was organised in the trade unions, and had a party which actively participated in the events. The opposite situation was to be observed in the Arabian East, where the workers took the field after a tremendous delay. The working masses as such constituted only the cannon fodder during the revolts in Egypt and Syria, whilst they were entirely absent as a class, as an organised force, The Egyptian Communist Party began its activity, not with forming a common Kuomintang, not by supporting Zaglul-Pasha, but rather by bitterly denouncing him.

All this happened six years ago, before the spread of the tidings of the Chinese revolution throughout the East, and so the mistakes of the Egyptian Party, particularly its isolation, led to grave consequences, to a complete detachment of the revolutionary movement from the common national movement. The result was that the Wafd Party, the adherents of Zaglul, had put themselves at the head of the Egyptian workers. They gained the leading role in the organisations and in the rural districts, whilst the Communist Party made its appearance when the tide was already receding. We had to win the working class when the revolutionary movement was already declining. When the organised working class began to push to the foreground, the bourgeoisie sought to come to terms with the imperialists. I declare quite categorically that this striving after peace with the imperialists on the one hand, and the sham revolutionary attitude on the other hand, constitutes the very substance of the policy of Zaglul and the Wafd Party. This should be explained not only by their fear of the struggle and of revolutionary actions, but rather by their fear of the rival Communist influence. It is a well known fact that the British Delegation with Lord Milner at its head was boycotted by the whole people and it was only by means of threats that Zaglul was induced to negotiate with Lord Milner. Milner asked the Wafd Party: “Do you want it here in Egypt the same way as in Soviet Russia? Do you wish to court the bolshevist peril? And indeed, as soon as Zaglul got into power he began to smash the Confederation of Labour, our section of the R.I.L.U., and generally to persecute the labour movement. But here the Wafd Party began to meet with new difficulties. It needed allies, but it could not work hand in hand with the workers, and besides, it had lost every influence among the workers. It would like very much to work together with the imperialists, but the latter have neither the wish nor the ability to gratify the minimum of their demands. The imperialists want the Wafd Party as an opposition group, as a lightning conductor against the feudal elements, but on the other hand, they want to keep the Wafd within certain bounds and to keep an eye on its revolutionary influence.

What should be our attitude towards the Wafd? Some comrades believe that the revolutionary role of the Wafd has already been played out; that it has now become a counter-revolutionary force; that it has associated itself with the counter-revolutionary forces, and that there can be no talk of an alliance with it. Nevertheless, comrades, I believe that by boycotting the Wafd we shall fall into the opposite extreme and commit a serious error. I might formulate our tasks in Egypt in the following manner: no formation of an alliance, no creation of common organisations, but a definite permanent contact with the Wafd, a contact upon the basis of concrete actions. The turning of the Wafd into a mass organisation, into a democratic organisation, would mean the creation of an apparatus against us, an apparatus which would strengthen even further the influence of national reformism.

You speak now about the formation of a workers and peasants’ party. This is a mere utopia, not because there is a danger that the C.P. would become transformed into a petty bourgeois party by allying itself with the peasantry, but simply because this is impossible. There is no such Communist Party, there are no such cadres as might undertake the task of organising the peasantry. The peasantry should be handled in quite a different way. I therefore urge the formation of peasant (fellah) committees, co-operative societies, different economic organisations, e.g. mutual aid, legal aid, etc., to which the agricultural labourers, the fellahin and the poor peasants should be attracted. We must bear in mind, comrades, that the Egyptian fellah works six months in the year as a wage earner, and the other six months as a landholder, so that it is rather difficult to draw the line between the labourer and the small peasant.

Vassilev (from the floor): “How will you join these elements in the co-operative movement?

They have common material interests. The fellah suffers from the speculators, and is dependent upon the usurers. There is a strong co-operative movement supported by the nationalists, and if we are looking for a basis for our activity, we must make use of it.

A few words about Arabia, Assyria, Palestine and Iraq. In Syria the national liberation movement suffered a great setback after the revolution, nevertheless the opposite thing has happened in that country from what took place in Egypt. It will perhaps be too strongly put, but I find no other words to express my thought. If the workers in China are resentful over the treason of the nationalists, e.g. Chang-Kai-shek, if we are all indignant over the alliance between the Chinese nationalists and imperialists, the opposite thing happened in Syria. At the moment of the revolutionary struggle, at the highest tide of the revolution, when the Syrian and Arabian nationalists fought with might and main, they were under the impression that they had been betrayed by the European proletariat. And this mistrust has not yet been dispelled. Now we are confronted with a big task: we must demonstrate that we are people of a different stamp from MacDonald who called himself a friend of the oppressed peoples, but who eventually acted in the same manner as the capitalists. Therefore the situation of the Communist Party in Palestine and Syria after the defeat of the Syrian revolution is a very difficult one. On the one hand, they have to unmask the traitors, the feudal elements, the representatives of the bourgeois democracy, and on the other hand they have to overcome the mistrust which has arisen among the native population against the European proletariat upon the aforesaid grounds.

Another problem, another danger which confronts us, is reformism. There has been a good deal spoken here about reformism, but I believe in no colony is it so strong as in Palestine. There we have a strong reformist organisation run by European imperialism and relying upon the Zionist movement, which has created for itself a strong basis. Although the labour movement is rather strong, nevertheless reformism is still stronger in Palestine. In the struggle against the communist influence it sticks at no means from the cruel persecution of revolutionary workers to the hoodwinking of the workers by the illusion that a “communist paradise” would be set up in Palestine. They are building a “communist society” under the protection of the British mandate.

The Arabian East is now at the parting of the ways. As the result of the latest events in Egypt, the question now confronts us no longer theoretically, but thoroughly in a practical shape. In view of the great events which are imminent in that country, we should not come too late. I maintain that if we stick to our present attitude, we shall positively be late.

I should like to conclude with the following remark. I believe that the greatest evil, or perhaps the greatest misfortune of the revolutionary movement in the East consists in the fact that it allows itself to be defeated singly in the different countries. When Egypt and Syria were quiet there was a strong movement in the Iraq. When the big miners’ struggle took place in England, it was quiet in our country. But when the revolutionary movement started in the East there was tranquility in England. It is the task of the European proletariat not to lag behind the colonial movement, as has been the case hitherto. This is our main task in the East and the indispensable postulate of victory for the national liberation movement.

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly. The ECCI also published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 monthly in German, French, Russian, and English. Unlike, Inprecorr, CI contained long-form articles by the leading figures of the International as well as proceedings, statements, and notices of the Comintern. No complete run of Communist International is available in English. Both were largely published outside of Soviet territory, with Communist International printed in London, to facilitate distribution and both were major contributors to the Communist press in the U.S. Communist International and Inprecorr are an invaluable English-language source on the history of the Communist International and its sections.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1928/v08n72-oct-17-1928-inprecor-op.pdf