The Spanish-speaking Americas became a force in the international Communist movement in the late 1920s as the process of U.S. imperialism becoming the dominate power in the Americas proletarianized and radicalized millions. In June, 1928 the Communist International (re)established a ‘South American Bureau’ headquartered in Buenos Aires in June, with Swiss militant Jules Humbert-Droz as Comintern emissary. Below is Humbert-Droz’s report on the region at the Sixth Comintern Congress held in August, 1928 as part of a larger discussion on the colonial world.

‘Questions of the Revolutionary Movement in Latin American Countries’ by Jules Humbert-Droz from International Press Correspondence. Vol. 8 No. 72. October 17, 1928.

In the course of the past years, and especially during last year, the relations between the Executive of the C.I. and the South American Communist movement developed considerably owing to the development of the South American movement itself. The Sections of the Communist International in Latin America have considerably developed. With the exception of the Argentine Party which underwent several serious crises, the other sections of the C.I. have considerably extended their influence over the masses. For instance, the Mexican Party increased its membership tenfold in the course of last year; the Brazilian Party succeeded in the course of a few months of legal existence in becoming a mass Party; it has extended its influence over big sections of workers and is leading the trade union movement of Brazil. We have witnessed the development of the Communist movement in several new countries: formation of Communist Parties in Cuba and Paraguay, collective adherence to the Communist International of the Socialist Party of Ecuador which has 10,000 members, affiliation to the Communist International of the Socialist revolutionary Party of Colombia established at a Congress of all the labour organisations of Colombia, which groups around itself collectively the entire trade union movement of that country.

The two latter parties cannot be considered by us as Bolshevised Communist Parties either from the ideological or the organisational viewpoint. Nevertheless these are mass movements which lead the working class and the peasantry in the revolutionary movement; in regard to spontaneity and revolutionary elan, their orientation is certainly towards the Communist International as the only revolutionary international force. At the close of this Congress we will consider the manner of keeping up relations with these Parties which want to affiliate to the C.I. and which are prepared to introduce into their structure and internal life the necessary modifications before becoming real members of the Communist International. Comrades, this development of our Communist movement in Latin America is to a great extent determined by the development of the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants and of big sections of the petty bourgeoisie in Latin America. The process of the colonisation of Latin America by yankee imperialism which developed very rapidly in the last years, has called forth throughout Latin America an anti-imperialist movement of workers, peasants and petty bourgeois elements, a movement which is assuming considerable proportions and revolutionary forms of struggle against imperialism. At the same time the struggle of the peasant masses, the landless peasants and the agricultural labourers against the regime of the big landlords, the regime of military or personal dictatorship which is the predominating political regime in most of the republics of Latin America, has developed into a revolutionary mass movement which found vent in insurrections of peasants, Indians, etc.

Finally, Latin America is also considered by us as one of the most important strategical points of the entire international situation. The rivalry between British and Yankee imperialism which goes on an international scale, is particularly sharp in the struggle for hegemony in Latin America. We will presently see how since the end of the world war Yankee imperialism is driving out British imperialism methodically and rapidly from the positions it occupied. Consequently, from the viewpoint of the international situation, the role played by Latin America is gaining in importance. But also because Latin America is becoming the principal colonial sphere of Yankee imperialism, the most powerful imperialism, because at present its forces of development are the biggest in the world, the revolutionary movement which is developing in Latin America against colonisation by Yankee imperialism is becoming one of the most important revolutionary factors of the international Socialist revolution, and especially of the struggle against the most powerful of all imperialists.

Comrades, I would like to place before you some problems of the revolutionary and the Communist movement in Latin America. We have there a number of countries with diverse economic and political conditions. If we consider the position of the French and British colonies of the Antilles, Guianas and the small republics of Central America which are essentially agrarian countries without any industrial proletariat, entirely. under the domination of Yankee imperialism, if we compare these countries with the economic and political situation in Argentine, Chili and Brazil, we will immediately notice a considerable difference in regard to the economic development, the political regime and the dependence or degree of colonisation of these various countries. The problems with which I will deal here will have to be examined from different viewpoints in accordance with the political and economic conditions of the countries.

However, all these countries so diverse at first sight, including the countries in the South of the South American Continent which are better developed economically and industrially than the countries in the North of that Continent and in Central America (not excepting even Mexico which has already gone through a first stage of revolutionary development against imperialism and the big landlords), have traits in common which we are going to examine so as to lay down the general tactical lines of our Communist action and of revolutionary action in general in Latin America.

First of all, a very important preliminary question. In discussion with comrades from the various Latin American countries, we have at first rather lively controversies concerning the semi-colonial character of Latin America.

As a rule, when we tell our Latin American comrades, on meeting them the first time, that the situation of their country is that of a semi-colony and that consequently we must consider the problems concerning it from the viewpoint of our colonial or semi-colonial tactic, they are indignant at this notion and assert that their country is independent, that it is represented in the League of Nations, has its own diplomats, consulates, etc. I remember the difficulties we had with the representative of the Communist Party of Cuba, one of the most typical colonies of Yankee imperialism. For a long time this comrade would not agree with us that Cuba is a semi-colony of Yankee imperialism. I therefore, think that it will be useful to demonstrate this semi-colonial character of the Latin-American countries.

Some Latin American countries seem to enjoy considerable independence: Argentine, Uruguay, Chili. Compared with other Latin America countries, there are considerable differences in the economic structure of these countries, in their political regime and the degree of civilisation. However, the investment of British and American capital in Argentine, Chili and Brazil, countries with a certain industrial development, show us that their economic development is not independent, that it is not the development of a capitalist economy independent of imperialism from which it will be able to emancipate itself at any moment; but that these countries are certainly to a lesser degree, semi-colonies of British and Yankee imperialism. It is also self-evident that in the countries where the struggle between British and Yankee imperialism for economic hegemony and political influence on the government is still undecided, where the forces of these two imperialisms are equal, as this is the case in Chili and Argentine, this very rivalry of the imperialisms allows the governments of these countries greater freedom of movement and manoeuvring. If we eliminate the Antilles and Central American countries which have remained colonies of various European countries, and consider the characteristics of the other “free” countries of Latin America, we realise that they have one thing in common: all of them are former Spanish or Portuguese colonies which emancipated themselves during the independence wars of the last century, but which having thrown off the tutelage of Spain and Portugal, became gradually the prey of British and subsequently also of Yankee imperialism. Their “emancipation” gave them political “independence”. In Latin America there are no concessions as in China, nor capitulations as in Turkey, nor any external form of the domination of British or Yankee imperialism. From the formal and juridical viewpoint, the countries of Latin America are “independent”. It should, however, be pointed out that these independence wars of the peoples of South America against Spain and Portugal were not a struggle of the natives against the colonisation effected by the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors. I will explain what I mean: The Portuguese and Spanish Conquerors drove the Indian tribes into the interior of the Continent, they took away the land from the Indians who lived under a primitive Communist regime, and divided it into big latifundia which are in the hands of white landed proprietors. The struggle against Spain and Portugal was not a struggle of the Indians against the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors for the restitution of their land, it was an independent struggle of the descendants of the settlers and big landed proprietors to emancipate themselves from the yoke and tributes imposed by the mother countries. They kept the land of the Indians, continued to despoil them and developed not into a national bourgeoisie but into a class of big national landed proprietors.

Soon after Latin America secured its political independence it became an important sphere of exploitation of the various European imperialists, the British first and foremost. On the eve of the world war the investments of British imperialism in Latin America amounted to 5000 million dollars. Lagging far behind British imperialism came the United States with one thousand two hundred and fifty million dollars, that is to say, with a capital four times smaller than that invested by British imperialism. France and Germany also endeavoured to invest capital and conquer the South American market, to extend their economic influence. It is not necessary to dwell here on this truth which everyone knows that the countries of Latin America are rich in raw material: oil, metals of all kinds, nitrates in Chili and that they are also rich from the viewpoint of agriculture and industrial crops: rubber, cotton, cocoa, coffee, grain, meat, etc. Exploitation of the soil and the mineral wealth was the bait for the various imperialisms, and especially the British imperialism.

Moreover, Latin America is a big continent with a relatively small population; therefore, it is also a colonial domain, capable of absorbing the labour power of immigrants.

I have said that prior to the world war hegemony in this colonisation of Latin America was in the hands of Great Britain. If we compare the figures of 1914 with those of 1928 we immediately realise how much the situation has changed and to what extent the colonisation of Latin America by the United States is developing.

In 1928 capital invested by Great Britain amounts to £1,200,000; it increased by 15 to 20% since 1914; the capital invested by the United States in Latin America amounts also to about £ 1,200,000. Thus, it increased in the course of the same years by 300%.

This fact shows that one cannot consider the colonisation of Latin America only from the viewpoint of the capital invested there, because if we study the figures we see that the capital invested by Great Britain is still slightly bigger than that invested by Yankee capitalists. But if we consider the tendency of the development, the rapidity with which investment of capital is proceeding in Latin America, we notice immediately that the recent excessive development in this direction favours yankee imperialism.

A few figures will demonstrate the rapidity and importance of this conquest of Latin America by the finance capital of North America. If we compare the figures of 1912 with those of 1928, we arrive at the following increase of Yankee capital:

Argentine…1025%
Brazil…676%
Chili…2906%
Peru…82%
Venezuela…5309%
Colombia…6000%

The two countries which have been to all intents and purposes conquered by American finance capital in the course of the last years are Venezuela and Colombia, that is to say, the countries richest in oil where exploitation of the oil wells has particularly developed in the last years. The figures for Colombia are given on the basis of loans and investments of capital made up to the first months of 1928. Since the publication of these figures the Colombian government was given an opportunity to get another loan of 100 million dollars which will raise the comparative figure from 6 to 10,000%.

I have said that Latin America is becoming a big colony of Yankee imperialism. In regard to this I draw your attention to the fact that the investment of Yankee capital in Latin America exceeds the capital invested by Yankee imperialism in Europe and constitutes 40% of the entire capital invested by the United States throughout the world.

This conquest of America by American finance capital is not proceeding evenly. The struggle of the North American capital against British hegemony, its advance proceeds geographically and methodically from the North to the South of the Continent. The “free” islands of the Antilles, Cuba, Haiti, St. Domingo are already colonies, all the republics of Central America if we eliminate Mexico which has special conditions are in reality the possession of big American companies which exploit the agricultural labourers and landless peasants.

I have already mentioned the investment of capital in Venezuela and Colombia where Yankee influence reigns supreme. But the more we go to the South of the Continent, the more we find the influence of British capital and struggle between British and North American finance capital. In Peru Yankee capital has already secured supremacy and has compelled certain British companies which were paramount, for instance, in the exploitation of copper, to form mixed Anglo-American companies. With regard to the nitrate mines of Chili the same phenomenon is to be observed. A big struggle is carried on in Argentine and Brazil where the hegemony of British capital still prevails.

We must, however, point out that the Ibanez dictatorship in Chili and the victory of the Irrigoyenist Party at the time of the last elections in Argentine, are a sign of the growing influence of Yankee imperialism on the governments of the country, parallel with increased investment of capital which pursues the obvious aim of securing as rapidly as possible hegemony in the whole continent for the United States. The latter secured in the course of the last years first place in regard to import of manufactured articles into Latin America. At the end of the war the United States were responsible only for 40% of the imports, whereas today they are responsible for 66%, which means that two-thirds of the products imported into Latin America come from the United States, this in spite of the efforts made by Germany, Japan and Italy to develop their commercial outlets into Latin America. This growing economic control develops also on the political field. The United States is using every possible method of corruption and coercion to secure political control over the States of Latin America, and to guarantee thereby the security of the invested capital. The countries of Central America are already entirely under the political control of the United States. The Constitution of Cuba provides for the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Cuba in case of unrest, so as to maintain “law and order”. If the peoples of Central America do not nominate the candidates of Wall Street during presidential elections which are engineered by the subsidies of the United States brutal American intervention takes place immediately. The military intervention in Nicaragua, the elections carried out under the control of the American navy demonstrate the manner in which the United States intervenes whenever its influence is merely contested.

Naturally, investment of capital alone is not enough to demonstrate the semi-colonial character of Latin American. One must also point out certain other phenomena which accompany this investment. For instance the growing commercial interchange between the countries of Latin America.

There exists an official protectorate of the United States over Panama, Haiti, St. Domingo, etc. In other Latin American countries, Ecuador, for instance, where American investments are comparatively small, United States experts are invited to intervene under the pretext of helping these countries to put their finances and their rate of exchange right, to organise the service of their foreign debt, etc. The Konierev mission worked in Colombia, Ecuador and Chile and while putting in order the finances and the whole economic and financial life of these countries, it appoints American agents as controllers of customs, banks, financial institutions. Of course this is done in proper form. In Ecuador, for instance, North American experts are appointed by the Government, and when we said to our Ecuador comrades that these controllers were agents of Yankee imperialism, they endeavoured to demonstrate to us that they are appointed by the Ecuador Government which is “at liberty” to accept or reject their advice. Surely, we cannot take seriously this “freedom” of the Ecuador or Colombia Government in regard to the “advice” of the North-American experts who supervise and control customs, financial institutions and banks in their countries. This is one of the forms used by Yankee imperialism to secure political influence on the Governments of the countries of Latin America, and at the same time, to obtain for Yankee commerce and enterprises advantages by the diminution of custom dues on North-American produce, by the suspension of labour-protection laws where they exist, in Yankee enterprises and by the suspension of laws concerning nationalisation of mineral wealth, etc.

Some comrades express the opinion that in its efforts to penetrate into Latin America Yankee imperialism supports the liberal movements against the dictatorship of the big landed proprietors. On the strength of the fact that in Brazil, Argentine and partly also in Chili, the Conservative and reactionary big landed proprietors were allied to British imperialism and that the budding national industrial bourgeoisie, the liberal petty-bourgeoisie, etc., was supported by Yankee imperialism in their movements against the reactionary government, the general rule has been deducted that when penetrating into Latin-America Yankee imperialism favours liberal and even revolutionary movements against the conservatives and the reactionary forms of their government.

I think that this is a wrong notion. For its economic penetration and political domination, the United States makes use of any form of Government. Where the Government and the ruling class are allied with British imperialism, Yankee imperialism supports in the interest of its struggle against British imperialism even revolutionary movements. We had, for instance, revolutionary movements in Sao-Paole in Brazil in which the industrial bourgeoisie, the petty-bourgeoisie, and big sections of workers and peasants of the Sao-Paolo region participated. These movements were clearly supported by Yankee imperialism against the big agrarians then in power who represent the influence of British imperialism. But when we turn our attention to the Republics of Central America, Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia and Peru, we notice that Yankee imperialism is ruling these countries through the intermediary of the worst reaction. The support given by Yankee imperialism in certain countries of Latin America to certain liberal groups, by no means signifies the desire to support liberal petty-bourgeois movements against the conservatives and the dictatorship of the big agrarians, it is only a means of struggle against British imperialism where it rules through the intermediary of big landed proprietors.

Another method of Yankee political penetration is all that is grouped around Pan-Americanism. You know that the United States is endeavouring to develop relations with Latin America, not only economic, but also political and cultural relations, by means of all sorts of Pan-American associations whose seat is generally New York. Politically, among the states of the American Continent, this Pan-Americanism has assumed the form of a Pan-American Union which unites into one federation and into regular conferences the representatives of all the countries of Latin America under the leadership of the North- American imperialism.

The last conference of the Pan-American Union held in Havana, was opened by Coolidge himself. This conference dealt with a series of problems concerning political and economic relations between the countries of Latin-America and the United States.

It is from the same viewpoint that we must consider the establishment of the Pan-American Confederation of Labour (C.O.F.A.) which is endeavouring to co-ordinate the trade union movement of Latin-America and that of the United States into one big Pan-American Trade Union Federation.

The United States, by exporting their capital to Latin America, and developing the industrialisation of the countries of Latin America, develop there at the same time the proletariat, the force which will destroy imperialism and its influence in Latin America. Therefore, Yankee imperialism endeavours to export not only its capital, but also the reformist method of corruption of the American Federation of Labour through the intermediary of the C.O.P.A. which is only the tool of Yankee imperialism in the ranks of the working class, the means by which the Wall Street financiers endeavour to insure their profits against the rebellion of the exploited.

This is one of the colonisation methods of Yankee imperialism in the South-American Continent. It is true that the danger of success in this domain is not very considerable because the working class of Latin-America has realised the real aim of the C.O.P.A. to which not a single mass organisation is affiliated except the C.R.O.M. (Mexican Trade Union Federation).

A few more words on the economic structure of the countries of Latin-America because their semi-colonial character is also due to their economic structure. Yankee capital is also invested in Germany and Italy, in highly developed capitalist countries which do not become semi-colonies by this fact. There is no well-developed national capitalism in the countries of Latin-America; the enterprises in which Yankee capital is invested are not exploited with a considerable participation of national capital as in Germany and Italy; there is no well-developed national capitalist regime in Latin-America. Yankee capital is invested in enterprises which are entirely in the hands of foreign imperialism which has created them. The economic structure is essentially agrarian. Nearly all the countries, perhaps with the exception of Chile which is highly industrialised and does not possess much arable land, are countries where agricultural production predominates. And in this agricultural production predominates the regime of big estates which belong either directly to foreign, British, American or Japanese companies the Japanese secured big concessions in Brazil lately or to the class of national big landed proprietors who are generally descendants of the Portuguese and Spanish conquerers who took away the land from the Indian tribes. The political domination of imperialism over the countries of Latin-America is effected through the intermediary of the class of big landed proprietors which is the ruling class.

I have already said that the colonisation forms of Latin-America are not the same as in the other colonial countries. There is no Viceroy or Governor of the United States, although the Yankee Ambassador frequently plays the role of a real Governor of the countries of Latin America, at least in Central America.

Industry is relatively not very much developed, and whereever it has achieved a certain development, it owes it to foreign capital. Countries such as Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Brazil and Argentine are developing rapidly from the industrial viewpoint and the investment of Yankee capital contributes considerably to this development of the productive forces of Latin-America.

But this development takes place in a certain direction and within certain limits: exploitation of raw material, preparation of mineral products for export, extraction of oil and various metals; it also takes place in the industry which transforms the raw material of agriculture: sugar refineries, tanneries, refrigerators in Argentine, Uruguay, Paraguay, etc. A certain development takes place also in the light industry, textile works, boot factories, etc., for immediate use on the internal market. But there is no development, or very slow and manifestly impeded development in the heavy industry, engineering works. The Yankee and British imperialists who invest capital in Latin-America reserve to themselves the South-American market as an outlet for the manufactured products of their heavy industry. Therefore, when considering the problem of the colonisation and industrialisation of Latin-America, we can assert that the industrialisation is proceeding rapidly and parallel with the colonisation. I emphasise this fact which shows clearly the difference between Latin America and that which Comrade Kuusinen told us about India. In Latin-America one cannot say that imperialism arrests or impedes the industrial development of the various countries into which it penetrates. On the contrary, the investment of capital contributes to the development of industrialisation, which does not mean that this industrialisation makes Latin-America evolve towards decolonisation.

On the contrary, the more capital imperialism invests in Latin-America, the more it develops industrialisation, the more also develops the colonisation of Latin-America. As industrialisation is effected directly by imperialism, it has not developed a class of independent national capitalists, consequently it merely accentuates the colonisation of these countries. This shows that wherever the capitalist regime is developing in these countries it does not develop as an independent regime, by its own forces which would jeopardize the imperialist positions, but that this development brings with it an increased colonisation of these countries. That is why the development of the budding national-bourgeoisie in Argentine and Brazil where we have an embryo of a national-bourgeoisie, depends on the investment of foreign capital. This bourgeoisie is tied from its very first steps, to foreign imperialism just as the class of big landed proprietors. This explains the inability of the national bourgeoisie in Latin-America to play a revolutionary role in the struggle against imperialism, it is tied to the interests of imperialism. Moreover, in many cases the national industrial bourgeoisie is tied to the interests of the landed proprietors. While in Argentine and Brazil the national industrial bourgeoisie has no close ties with the class of landed proprietors, in a number of other countries industrialists are at the same time big landed proprietors: they own works for the transformation of agricultural raw material: sugar refineries on the cane-sugar plantations, etc. Therefore, in most Latin-American countries there is no struggle of the national bourgeoisie against big landed proprietors owing to the very fact that by its social composition this national bourgeoisie is part and parcel of the class of landed proprietors. On the basis of this economic structure, the class structure is as follows: first, the mass of poor peasants and agricultural labourers who work under semi-feudal conditions which resemble more primitive slavery than the modern wage system. The emancipation of the slaves which took place in the course of the last century has changed the juridical position of agricultural labourers on plantations in regard to their former masters, but not their extremely hard labour conditions.

The Indian tribes play also a very important role in the social structure of the Latin-American countries, especially in the Bolivian countries, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia. where the natives who have been driven into the interior of the country are continually rising in order to get back their land.

However, this problem of the struggle of the Indians against the whites is in reality the struggle of the peasants and agricultural labourers against the big landed proprietors.

The working class is relatively weak owing to the relatively weak development of industry. But as industrialisation gradually develops, the class-consciousness, cohesion, the forces and the politico-social role of the working class, of the industrial proletariat also develop.

The mass of the petty-bourgeoisie, intellectuals, artisans, small traders, etc., jeopardized by the penetration of imperialism, play an important social and political role, especially where the proletariat is still weak.

Another important question is that of the character of the revolutionary movements in Latin America. On the basis of the economic and social situation of the countries of Latin America which I have just described, in the course of the last years a revolutionary struggle has developed among the peasant masses (agricultural labourers and poor peasants) against the big landed proprietors, a struggle in which Indians have taken an active part. Parallel with this we witnessed the development of the struggle of the other sections of the population: workers, peasants and the petty-bourgeoisie against the colonisation and exploitation of Latin-America by imperialism.

I will merely enumerate the main facts:

The Mexican Revolution about which our Mexican comrades will speak in greater detail, was an insurrection of landless peasants against the regime of the big landed proprietors, for better conditions of labour. Supported by big sections of workers and the petty-bourgeoisie of Mexico, it led to the establishment of a government of the revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie which has the support and protection of the peasantry and the workers against any attempts at counter-revolution. Struggle against Yankee imperialism has become one of the main features of this revolutionary movement. This revolution which is essentially of an agrarian character has been developing since 1910-11 until to-day, its culminating point being reached in 1917 when the revolutionary Constitution was adopted. a constitution which stipulates nationalisation of the underground wealth, abolition of the rights of the big landed proprietors, introduction of comprehensive social legislation, etc. However, the Mexican Revolution has not given land to the landless peasants and agricultural labourers. The policy of the revolutionary government of Mexico consisted in developing an agrarian bourgeoisie; but this aim has not been fully accomplished because the government did not have the necessary means for this. The struggle of the peasants for land, the counter-revolutionary insurrections provoked by the church and the big landed proprietors together with Yankee imperialism, continue. Civil war is permanent and another revolutionary wave of the masses is imminent.

A movement of a different nature is developing in Ecuador, where, under the influence of the peasant insurrections, the army accomplished in 1925 a coup d’etat which brought the army officers into power. After issuing a decree giving land to the peasants, this government too showed itself unable to bring about an agrarian revolution. It did not expropriate the big landed proprietors, which led to further insurrections of peasants and Indians against the government. The agrarian revolution is still to be made.

In 1923, a similar coup d’etat occurred in Chile which for a time brought a section of the army officers into power. This government which had the support of the labour organisations, the Red trade unions and the Communist Party was overthrown by the bourgeoisie and the landed proprietors and replaced, after another coup d’etat, by the Ibanez dictatorship.

In Nicaragua we witness the insurrection of the liberal general Sandino. Moreover, there is a series of revolutionary movements of the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat where it already plays an important role in Brazil(Sao Paolo), Argentine (Patagonia). Peru and Bolivia; there have also been demonstrations of workers and students, a general strike and mutinies in Venezuela, an anti-imperialist revolutionary movement in Cuba, the Antilles, in the whole of Central America. etc.

What is the character of these revolutionary movements? First of all there is the revolutionary peasant movement against the big landed proprietors for land; this is in fact the fundamental character of all the revolutionary movements of Latin America. Then there is the struggle of the workers, peasants and the petty-bourgeoisie against imperialism, especially against Yankee imperialism. Then there is the struggle of the working masses against the dictatorship regime, emergency laws and terrorism which is carried on in many of the South American countries, for civil liberties and a liberal regime. Finally, there is the struggle wherever the working class is already playing an active role of the workers for better conditions of labour, for the abolition of conditions reminiscent of slavery on plantations, in mines, etc. Owing to this funda- mental character of the revolutionary movement of Latin America we can say that it is a revolutionary movement of the democratic-bourgeois type in a semi-colonial country where struggle against imperialism occupies an important place and where the predominating struggle is not that of a national bourgeoisie for independence on a capitalist basis but struggle of the peasants for the agrarian revolution against the regime of the big landed proprietors.

As to the character of the revolutionary movement in Latin America, we had certain divergences of opinion in our ranks, in the Latin Secretariat and in the Presidium of the C.I. Comrade Travin especially defended the point of view that the revolutionary movement of Mexico and of Latin America in general is a revolutionary movement of an elementary proletarian or Socialist type. He has changed somewhat this first formula in the thesis which he issued on this subject for the Congress. He says in this new thesis: “It is a mistake to look upon these movements as Socialist movements…”, then he adds: “it is not a revolution of a democratic-bourgeois type”, and he gives certain reasons for this. But lower down he says: “We can define it as a spontaneous mass revolution of a Socialist type…” He also makes the following statement: “As the revolution develops, socialist traits relegate to a back seat bourgeois-democratic traits.”

There are a good many contradictions in these assertions. If the Socialist traits of the revolution relegate to a back seat the traits of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, this means that the latter occupied first place. Of what type is then the revolution if it is neither Socialist nor bourgeois-democratic? It seems that according to Comrade Travin’s theory there is a certain evolution of the revolution, that it began by being bourgeois-democratic and that it is evolving into a Socialist Revolution by developing the Socialist sector to the detriment of the capitalist. “Socialist traits relegate to a back seat bourgeois-democratic traits”. I think that this is not correct. We have witnessed a peasant revolution against the big landed proprietors for land and against the Diaz military dictatorship in Mexico; for the democratic regime, against Yankee imperialism and the power of the church. We have here the characteristic traits of a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Is this revolution on the point of evolving gradually towards a Socialist revolution? I think that the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a proletarian revolution does not proceed through the gradual elimination of the bourgeois-democratic character of the revolution and its substitution by the Socialist character. We witness a crisis in the bourgeois-democratic revolution itself. The revolutionary bourgeois democratic government in the hands of the petty-bourgeoisie supported by the agrarian bourgeoisie and a few big landed proprietors who have joined it, arrests the agrarian revolution instead of developing it. Lately, the Calles Government has been making enormous concessions to Yankee imperialism, especially in regard to the application of the laws on oil. The conflict between Mexico and the Yankee oil magnates has been settled by the capitulation of the Mexican Government. The attitude of the Government of Mexico at the Havana Conference was that of capitulation before Yankee imperialism. The struggle of the Mexican Government is not against imperialism but against the working class. It suppresses all strikes, especially in Yankee enterprises. It has capitulated in regard to oil, it is also capitulating before the big landed proprietors. The tribunals are returning to them the confiscated land; there has been no distribution of land among poor peasants and agricultural labourers. The government is endeavouring to disarm the peasants and its struggle is only directed against the church and its attempts at counter-revolutionary insurrection.

The Mexican revolution. instead of evolving gradually towards its Socialist stage, is retrogressing. This retrogression calls forth naturally new internal contradictions, a reaction on the part of the masses. We will not have a gradual evolution of the revolution, a progressive elimination of the bourgeois-democratic traits by Socialist traits, but another crisis of the revolutionary movement. The bourgeois-democratic revolution, which has not attained all its objects, continues the struggle against the Catholic church and a section of the big landed proprietors. But it does not fulfil the elementary demands of the peasants, it is compromising with imperialism at the expense of the masses; consequently it revives the revolutionary struggle of the workers and peasants, which means development of the revolution towards its ultimate aim. The revolutionary struggle will be directed more and more against that section of the petty bourgeoisie which is on the point of going over to the counter-revolutionary camp by its abdication policy. The prospect of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Mexico is not progressive transformation into Socialist revolution, the prospect is that the hegemony of the petty bourgeoisie in the revolutionary movement of Mexico will be gradually eliminated and that the role of the Communist Party, of the proletariat will become a very important role, that of leader of the masses in the second wave of the revolutionary movement. The bourgeois democratic revolution of Mexico, instead of being led by the petty bourgeoisie, will be led more and more, after the failure of the petty bourgeoisie in power, by the proletariat, by the Party of the proletariat the Communist Party.

If Comrade Travin means that from the viewpoint of its international role, the Mexican revolution and the revolutionary movement of Latin America are supporting the revolutionary movement of the international proletariat, I fully agree with him. However, it will not become an integral part of it until the revolution in Latin America will have assumed the character of a Socialist revolution; for the time being, it is a revolutionary movement which is not of a Socialist character, but which, as all revolutionary movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries. supports the revolutionary action of the international proletariat and the Socialist world revolution.

If Comrade Travin means that the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Latin America will rapidly develop into a proletarian revolution, I fully agree with him. In these countries there is no base for the development of an independent national capitalism. The capitalist stage of the economic development of Latin America depends entirely on imperialism. The capitalist regime is only developing as a colonial regime. Consequently, struggle against the colonial regime and against the big landed proprietors does not tend to develop an independent capitalist regime in Latin America, this struggle being directed as much against the budding national bourgeoisie allied with imperialism as against imperialism itself. In Latin America we have all the elements for a rapid transition of the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the proletarian revolution.

If Comrade Travin means that in its Socialist stage the revolution will have to accomplish certain tasks which the bourgeois-democratic revolution will not have been able to bring to an end, especially the struggle against imperialism and transference of the land to the peasantry, I again thoroughly agree with him. The bourgeois-democratic revolution will not fully attain its aims (distribution of land to the peasantry, liberation from imperialism) until it develops into a Socialist Revolution under the hegemony of the proletariat. The very history of the Mexican Revolution shows that the petty-bourgeoisie in power, at the head of the revolution, is not able to attain all the aims of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Thus, the main question confronting our Parties and ourselves is that of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary movement of Latin America. As long as the revolutionary movement of Latin America remains under the political leadership of the petty bourgeoisie, it will not be able to attain all the aims of the bourgeois-democratic revolution; consistent struggle against imperialism, confiscation of the estates of the big landed proprietors, distribution of land to the peasantry. Thus, the main thing for our Parties at the present juncture is conquest by their work, propaganda and struggle of the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle of the countries of Latin America. I must say that in regard to this there are many shortcomings in our Parties. For instance, the Mexican Party was right in supporting the government in its armed struggle against the insurrections of the big landed proprietors and the church and against the intrigues of Yankee imperialism. But the manner in which our Party supported the Mexican Government was frequently erroneous because our Party did not consider the question of proletarian hegemony, of the conquest of the masses which were defending the revolutionary petty-bourgeois government against the big landed proprietors, the necessity of bringing them under the influence of the Communist Party. By considering too much the Mexican Revolution as a revolution of a Socialist type, as the Russian Revolution, it gave unconditional support to the petty-bourgeois government without endeavouring in the course of the common action to organise the masses in organisations fit to defend the gains of the revolution, as the C.I. had recommended.

The most important question before our Parties is formation of a bloc of the revolutionary forces, a bloc of the agrarian and industrial working class, of the landless peasantry including even settlers, farmers, etc., and of the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie. This bloc of all the revolutionary forces is necessary, but in this bloc the Communist Party must maintain its independence, it must make full use of its right to criticise, it must endeavour to get away the masses from the influence of petty bourgeois politicians in order to bring them under the influence of the Communist Party and place them in the service of the revolution. Owing to the hegemony of one class or another in the revolutionary movement of Latin America, the character of this movement and its development possibilities will change completely. The revolutionary movement of Latin America under the leadership of the petty-bourgeoisie proceeds in the form of military coups d’etat supported by the toilers and the army. Generals play a preponderating role, they establish their dictatorship and endeavour to impede the revolutionary action of the masses. Under the hegemony of the working class the action of the masses will occupy first place and will be supported by a section of the army. The relations of the action of the masses and the army will be reversed. That is why our Parties must bring forward at the moment of the development of the revolutionary action the question of the formation of representative organs of the working class, commit- tees of action of workers and peasants, committees for the defence of the revolution, peasant, workers’ and soldiers’ Soviets, so as to prevent the revolution developing on the lines on which these revolutions were made in the last years, in the form of dictatorship of generals, of the army over the working class and the peasantry: the mass of the workers and peasants must develop dual power in the revolutionary movement by creating their own fighting organs capable of transforming them- selves into organs of power of the workers and peasants. I think that this idea has not been given sufficient prominence, especially by our Mexican Party. In the struggle of the Mexican peasants against the big landed proprietors and the church, our Party should have brought up the question of the organisation by the peasants of their own organs of defence and action, the embryo of the peasant regime in the rural districts.

This change in the character of the revolutionary movement is not only linked up with the question of proletarian hegemony, hegemony itself depends to a great extent on the correlation of social forces in countries of Latin America, on the degree of the development, concentration and organisation of the proletariat as an independent class. Industrialisation develops the numerical strength and concentration of the proletariat. It is incumbent on our parties to organise it in the class organisations, to awaken its class consciousness and train it to play in the development of the social and political life the role of leader of the other working classes.

What must be the aims of the revolutionary movement at that stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Latin America? What must be at the same time the main slogans of our work and mass struggle?

1. Expropriation without compensation and nationalisation of land and mineral wealth. Distribution of land among those who till it: for its collective exploitation by agricultural communes, on big plantations, on latifundia and in agricultural communes where collective tilling already exists. Distribution of the land for usufruct to peasants, farmers and settlers where tilling is carried on under the regime of individual or family labour.

2. Confiscation and nationalisation of foreign enterprises (mines, industrial enterprises, transport, banks, etc.).

3. Annulment of State and municipal debts and of all forms of control over the country by imperialism.

4. Eight-hour day and abolition of semi-slave conditions of labour.

5. Arming of workers and peasants and transformation of the army into a workers’ and peasants’ militia.

6. Abolition of the power of the big landed proprietors and the church, and organisation of the power of workers’, peasants’ and soldiers’ soviets.

It is also necessary to organise the entire revolutionary struggle of Latin America against Yankee imperialism. We must overcome the nationalism which imperialism has fostered in most of the Latin-American countries so as to excite them against each other and divide them. For this purpose we must issue the slogan “Federal Union of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Republics of Latin America”, for their common struggle against Yankee imperialism.

I think that we must lay stress on the necessity of developing against Pan-Americanism which is the instrument of subjection of Latin America by the North American imperialism, the idea of Latin-Americanism. On this subject the representatives of the Communist Parties of the Latin American countries have their doubts in regard to the slogan “Latin Americanism” because it is also the slogan of the petty-bourgeoisie which wants to play a revolutionary role against Yankee imperialism. I think that this slogan is correct even if the petty bourgeoisie is already struggling with this slogan against imperialism: rallying the entire trade union movement of Latin America into one trade union federation, and the same for the peasant organisations; rallying the entire anti-imperialist movement on a Latin-American basis to demonstrate the solidarity of the countries of Latin America. There is nothing in the race or language which separates the peoples of Latin America into different nationalities. United Latin America must constitute a whole directed against Yankee imperialism. Our addition to the slogan of the petty bourgeoisie is alliance of all the revolutionary forces of Latin America with the revolutionary working class of the United States which must support their struggle.

On this subject, we must say that our Party in the United States has not done its duty towards Cuba, Mexico and Nicaragua which it should have supported more effectively.

The last question raised by the Parties of Latin America is that of the formation of workers’ and peasants’ Parties.

Our Parties are weak ideologically and organisationally, their influence among the masses is growing, but they have not organised in a Bolshevik manner big sections of agricultural labourers and peasants in their own ranks. They are asking themselves the question: How are we to establish an organisational connection between our Party and the masses under our influence? Our Parties have solved this problem in various ways. Some of them, for instance, the Colombian and Chilian Parties, have simply transformed the mass trade union movement into a political party of the Chilian proletariat. For a long time and in Colombia even now there was no organisational separation between the Party and the Trade unions. This is of course a primary stage which we must over- come, because the Party and the trade unions must suffer from this organisational confusion.

Other parties solved this problem in a different way. The Socialist Party of Ecuador has been formed on the model of the Belgian Labour Party; it is based on individual membership and collective affiliation of trade union organisations under the leadership of the Communist Party.

This is not a perfect type of organisation. The Communist Party has degenerated into a kind of sect, almost free masonic in regard to the admission of members, with a special and secret ritual and without mass recruiting. We must also combat the idea of the formation of a kind of Labour and Farmer Party under the leadership of a small Communist group.

When the Kuomintang was playing an important role in China, our Comrades in Brazil discussed the advisability of forming a Kuomintang which was to coordinate the organisations of the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie, those of the working and peasant classes, trade union organisations and the C.P. They abandoned this idea after the failure of the Kuomintang in China. At present they have joined a workers’ and peasants’ bloc which coordinates labour and peasant organisations. But there is the danger of certain petty-bourgeois elements succeeding in seizing this workers’ and peasants’ bloc.

I think that at the bottom of all these attempts we have the just and necessary pre-occupation of connecting the Communist Party, the vanguard of the proletariat, with the mass organisations of the workers and peasants and with the mass of the revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie for the revolutionary struggle; not only to form an occasional and temporary united front with it, but to be able to lead these organisations in the revolutionary struggle. Of course the best way of leading these organisations is to have fractions in them and to work within their ranks in order to win the confidence of the masses and secure leadership in their organisations. I think that there is for our comrades a great danger of confusion if there be two parties, a Party of the proletariat and a party of the workers and peasants. The Communist Party will either degenerate into a sect as in Ecuador, or it will simply become absorbed by the workers’ and peasant’ party and will not continue its Communist work. There is also another alternative: the workers’ and peasants’ party of Brazil if we are not awake to this danger might oppose the Communist Party at the decisive moment and develop into a mass Party hostile to the Communist Party.

We must therefore reject the proposal of forming workers’ and peasants’ parties in Latin America. We must find the solution of the problem of linking up the Communist Party with labour and peasant organisations in the form of a bloc in which the Communist Party will be the most influential and leading organisation, in which the Communist Party, by its fractions, will have a hold on the organisations affiliated to the Workers’ and Peasants’ Bloc by not admitting as adherents to this bloc the political organisations of the petty bourgeoisie with which we can practice the united front whenever this is opportune but which we must not organise in this bloc if we want to prevent its influence predominating even in our own ranks. Occasional united front with the organisations of the revolutionary petty-bourgeoisie and workers’ and peasants’ bloc which must be maintained and continually reinforced for the realisation of a whole historical stage of the development of the revolutionary movement, finally democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants, such must be our general policy. But the main, the fundamental question in Latin America is that of the development and consolidation of our Communist Parties, from the organisational and also the ideological view- point. The task of the international is to help with all the means at its disposal our Communist Parties so as to enable them to become genuine Bolshevik parties, to raise their ideological level in order that the confusion which still exists in their ranks be eliminated, and that they might become mass parties, Communist in their ideology, their organisation, etc.

For this work tact is required on the part of the C.I. It cannot go to these parties with the 21 conditions and say: if you do not accept them and do not carry them out, we will expel you from the Communist International. We must proceed cautiously and tactfully so as not to dissociate the already developed comrades from the mass of the workers and peasants who want to struggle with us under the banner of the Communist International.

We must combat especially in the labour movement, in the trade unions and even in our own ranks the relics of anarcho-syndicalism and the efforts made by Amsterdam and the American Federation of Labour to bring the labour movement of South America under the influence of Yankee or British imperialism in order to poison it with reformism and divert it from the revolutionary struggle for the benefit of Wall Street financiers. Moreover we must struggle against reformism which still exists in its corporative and mutual benefit organisations, we must bring the trade union movement onto the path of the revolutionary trade union movement, we must link it up with the International proletarian movement and must at the same time cleanse our Parties of all reformist ideology. We must act with circumspection and tact, bearing in mind in what epoch we are working and the importance of the Latin American movement in the struggle against the most powerful imperialism. We must reinforce our Parties ideologically to enable them to become mass Parties capable of playing in the revolutionary movement a leading role and remaining at the same time in contact with the masses. The C.I. must help our Parties to become genuine Bolshevik Parties. Only on this condition will the revolutionary movement of Latin America attain its historical objects and promote the development of the bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution, into a real dictatorship of the working class. In regard to all these problems I have laid draft theses before the colonial commission which must determine the general tactical lines of the Latin American movement. I think that this is the path to be pursued in the future by the C.I. and our Communist Parties. (Applause.)

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.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1928/v08n74-oct-25-1928-inprecor-op.pdf