An early look at Chinese labor, particularly the mass strikes in Hong Kong, from Grigori Voitinsky, first head of the Comintern’s Far Eastern Bureau, and liaison to China central to the formation of the C.C.P.

‘The Labor Movement in China’ by G. Voytinsky from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 2 No. 98. November 13, 1922.

The beginning of the current year will be a memorable period for the Labor movement in China.

On the 13th January of this year the Chinese seamen in Hongkong entered on a strike. The strike which extended to the workers in the various branches of production, and drew into the struggle against English and inland capital over 100,000 men lasted for about two months and ended with the victory of the strikers.

The strike of Honkong was without doubt an historical event for the Labor Movement of China from which the Chinese proletariat will count the further stages in its struggle against capital. The expression: “Before the Hongkong Strike” and “after the Honkong Strike” will from now on denote an epoch in the Chinese labor movement.

The response to this first organized and victorious uprising of the Chinese workers is still felt over the whole of the gigantic area of China.

Immediately after and even during the Honkong strike, strike movements began in Canton and its surroundings; afterwards the strike wave swept to Shanghai, Hankau, the Peking-Hankau railway line, Tianzin and finally touched the Portuguese colony in South China and the Island of Makao.

It was finally ended by the strike of the Postal employees in Shanghai and a strike in one of the English Tobacco factories.

The Honkong strike of the Chinese seamen and dock workers therefore merits the thorough attention of all who wish to have a correct understanding of the rise of the Chinese Labor movement. This movement will, under the Chinese conditions very rapidly become a gigantic factor in the struggle for the national independence of China, for its liberation from the chains of imperialism.

In any event the imperialists are giving this event their serious attention. The English press in China which hitherto every time the workers demanded better treatment or an increase of a copper cent in their wages, only sneered at the Chinese “Coolie”, at this “rabble”, this time treated the question of the strike with seriousness and uneasiness. The question was even Brought up in the English parliament and many imperialists. threatened the despatching of troops into Chinese towns. And in truth English imperialism had reason to fear. The Hongkong strike which commenced with the demand of the seamen for an increase of their wages by 30 to 48 per cent developed very quickly into an anti-imperialist action. Literally the whole of the Chinese population surrounded the strikers with an atmosphere of sympathy and universal support. The government of south China supported the strikers and endeavoured to make use of the strike for the movement for national emancipation. The threats of the English governor in Hongkong frightened neither the strikers nor the Southern Chinese Government.

We can judge from the English press for the period from January to March of this year of the character and extent of this strike.

The following is an approximate account derived from the piecing together of all the information taken from the English papers and periodicals appearing in China.

At first only 10,000 seamen went on strike. After some days the strikers began to leave Hongkong and to betake themselves to Canton i.e. into Chinese territory where they knew they would be in a friendly atmosphere and where they would be free from repression on the part of the English imperialists.

Immediately after the arrival of the first group of strikers, the working population of Canton and in particular the workers organisations, of which there are 150 in Canton, began to organise Relief activity for the strikers, housing room and provisions were supplied.

The government party of the South, “Gominden” organized meetings in favour of the strikers, where the idea of national independence and the struggle against the militarists of the north was proclaimed. The communist organisations also and the union of communist youth made use of the situation for the holding of a number of meetings and assemblies.

Meanwhile the number of the strikers grew more and more and all ships which left Honkong proceeded to Canton. On the 1st February the number of the strikers already amounted to about 40,000 and in the harbour of Hongkong there lay idle 166 ocean steamers with a tonnage of over 280,000. Entire workers organizations such as the Porters Guild, the Dockers and even the Hotel Workers’ Unions ceased work out of sympathy towards the striking seamen. It is interesting to note that this strike extended to the lower Chines officials and to the clerks in the offices of English firms.

In one word the strike, in consequence of the peculiar coditions in China became not merely a fight against capital, but partook of the character of a national struggle.

The class character of the fight however became ever more clearer from day to day.

This was expressed in the first place by the fact that it was chiefly the Chinese workers organised in unions that were drawn into the struggle. Thus the Mechanics Union of Hongkong right from the beginning put forward the demand that the Seamen’s claims be granted and threatened to strike in case of refusal. This union jointly with the Railway workers union convened a full meeting at which it was decided, to appeal by means of a circular to all Chinese railway workers to demand a wage increase of 30 per cent which should be devoted to the support of the striking seamen.

The railwaymen on the Kanton-Hangkou line made use of this opportunity and submitted to their administration a series of other demands, among them, the regulation of the question of the engaging and dismissal of workers.

The Seamen’s strike found a response not only among the working masses of South China but also in all the industrial cities of northern and central China.

On the Peking-Hangkou line, the railwaymen attached placards to the tenders of the locomotives bearing the inscription: “We are supporting the seamen of Hongkong.”

The Typographical workers of Hongkong entered the strike “in order to prevent the imperialists from printing false reports upon the strike.” On the Peking-Mugden (the northern part of China and Manchuria), Peking-Seyan, and Peking-Hangkau were a number of meetings were organized for the support of the strikers.

In Schanghai where the English attempted to introduce strike breakers, the trade union councils fought successfully against this attempt.

The above mentioned facts are of enormous importance for the Chinese labor movement. It is still a generally known fact that the working masses of China, like the whole of the Chinese population in general suffer from a provincial patriotism in the worst sense of the word. The printers in Shanghai who, for example are natives of Canton and are united according to their province maintain the most hostile relations with the workers in the same industry who happen to be natives of Peking of Shanghai. Here it is not only a question of difference of speech. but the general aversion of the Southerner to the Northerner also plays a part.

The strike of Honkong issued for the first time in China the slogans of class solidarity on a national scale, slogans which proved to be stronger than the prejudices and traditions of provincialism. The class interests manifested themselves in such a concrete form, that this strike will leave behind it ineradicable traces in the uniting of the whole of the Chinese proletariat.

Not less important however is another factor of the Chinese Labor movement, which was realized for the first time in the Hongkong strike–that is the question of the recognition of the trade unions and the representation of the workers exclusively through the same.

The cause of the putting forward of this demand and which even made it the chief demand was the action of the English government who, immediately after the declaration of the strike dissolved the railwaymen’s union and declared it to be an illegal organisation. The seamen thereupon grasped the full importance of the attack directed against their union and declared in their negotiations with the employers, that before they would proceed to Honkong to discuss the question of the increase of wages, the recognition of the seamen’s union must form the basis of the negotiations and that the representatives of the union would conduct the negotiations with the capitalists. The seamen demanded at the same time the engagement of workers exclusively according to the rules of the unica, as well as guarantees against subsequent penalization, and the reengagement of all strikers. The longer the strike lasted the more clearly formulated and far-reaching became the demands of the seamen. To the demand for the increase of wages for instance there was added the demand that this increase should extend to those seamen who up to this time were at sea and that the increase should be paid from the 1st January of this year.

The demand for the recognition of the union and the engagement of workers through the union, brought for the first time in China the question of the class unity of the working class in its full extent, right to the forefront. As a result the system of craft unionism as also the system of workers private co-operative societies received a decided blow. The seamen of Hongkong during the strike perceived with perfect clearness, that they must have their own class organization and that the creation of an organizatory federation with the seamen’s unions of all other harbour towns in South, Central and North China was an absolute necessity. The delegations which were sent by the striking seamen to all Chinese ports prove this.

The whole experience of the Honkong strike was naturally turned to good account not only by the seamen.

This strike possessed an enormous revolutionary importance for the whole Chinese proletariat. It may be assumed that the victory of the seamen has made a complete and final end of the idea of the invincibility of foreign, and chiefly English capital, among the working masses of China. In fact this victory was the occasion of a series of further strikes which we have already referred to which took place after the Hongkong strike.

The Honkong strike makes the way clear for the formation of a labor movement through class organisations.

Upon examination of the above cited strikes a certain quality can be detected which is common to all. It is the fact which we mentioned at the outset: the Chinese labor movement is at the same time also a movement for national emancipation.

The labor organizations are at present the pioneers in the struggle against imperialism. In any case the Chinese bourgeoisie merely joined in the struggle of the Chinese workers against foreign capital, but the initiative proceeded no longer from them as was for example the case in 1919 when the boycott of Japanese goods organized by the young offsprings of the Chinese bourgeoisie, by the Chinese students and the commercial world raged like a tornado over the whole of China.

This year, in addition to the Hongkong strike and also in a yet greater measure in the strike of Makoa there was a movement against foreign imperialism in China, and thereupon the Chinese bourgeoisie joined in this movement and afforded the strikers help.

When however the strike wave swept from the outer to the interior Chinese districts, the relations of the Bourgeoisie to the working class naturally suffered. The book-printers strike in Canton serves as an example of this, which as a consequence of the repressions of the “revolutionary” government of the south was discontinued.

It is therefore not surprising that the resolution proposed at the Trade union congress in Canton at the beginning of this year regarding the recognition of the southern government was rejected by the workers.

The Chinese labor movement, as is to be seen from the above, in addition to the fight against the colonial policy of the imperialists i.e. for national liberation, conducts the fight against the exploitation of labor on the part of inland capital. The fact that at present the labor organizations constitute the most active force in the struggle against foreign capitalism and imperialism in China proves the growth of these organizations and their continually growing importance in the political life of the Chinese people.

The Chinese working masses are therefore beginning to become conscious of their power and reveal their strength in organized form. This was the case recently when the railwaymen on the Peking-Hanghau line declared that they would stop the traffic should the northern troops be sent against south China.

It may be taken for granted that the organized Chinese proletariat will demand greater economic and political rights from the Chinese bourgeoisie the more it takes active part in the struggle against the common enemy of the Chinese people, against world imperialism.

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. Inprecorr is 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/1922/v02n098-nov-13-1922-Inprecor.pdf