Two years after its founding and a vastly different, but still significant, second international Congress of the League Against Imperialism took place in Frankfurt am Main in the summer of 1929. Between the two congresses the alliance with the Kuomintang had been drowned in blood, the growth of the Independent Labour Party in Britain, and the withdrawal of the Indian National Congress from active League participation. A significant change in leadership and policy the Soviet Union and Communist International occurred as the New Economic Policy gave way to the Third Period, and the ‘anti-imperialist united front’ orientation shifted to ‘class against class’. Here the new leadership of the Comintern looks back and what it says are the mistakes of the Bukharin-led Comintern at the Congress.

‘The League against Imperialism: Its Congress and its New Tasks’ from Communist International. Vol. 6 No. 24. November 1, 1929.

THE second congress of the League Against Imperialism, and in general the activity of the League as a non-party mass organisation whose function it is to unite organisations and individuals who desire to fight against imperialism, undoubtedly deserves special attention in the third period of imperialism’s post- war crisis. The League Against Imperialism unites within itself the mass organisations of the imperialist countries (trade unions, political parties, non-party organisations, etc.) and the mass organisations of the colonial and semi- colonial countries, and also the oppressed nationalities of the imperialist countries (national-revolutionary organisations, trade unions, peasant organisations, etc.). At the same time a number of social reformist, nationalist and pacifist organisations in the imperialist countries have joined the League Against Imperialism: organisations which fight imperialism in words, but in deeds objectively and often even subjectively serve as tools and agents of imperialism. There have also entered the League a number of national reformist organisations in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, which are at the moment opposing imperialism, but whose opposition is weakening day by day as they draw nearer to imperialism and begin to fuse with it. The special value and significance of the League, particularly at the present time, consists just in this complex structure. The special characteristic of the present third period is the fact that the rise of the revolutionary workers’ movement in the imperialist countries is taking place at the same time as the rise of the national liberation movement in the most important colonial countries. The first of May in Berlin, the first of August demonstrations of the international proletariat, the strikes and development of the workers’ struggle in Britain, the sharpening of the strike warfare in Germany and France, the strike of the tobacco workers in Bulgaria, the struggle of the miners in Rumania, the strike struggle in the United States, and the whole leftward movement of the working-class in the imperialist countries have been accompanied by similar movements in the colonial countries. We find a gigantic growth of strike warfare and of the national movement in India, a sharp crisis in the counter-revolutionary position and a rise of the working-class movement in China, armed uprisings of the fellaheen and the Bedouin masses in Palestine, and the growth of the national liberation struggle in Iraq, Transjordania, Syria and other Arabian countries, the crisis of the imperialist-fascist dictatorship in Egypt and the development of the national movement, a series of armed revolts in Latin America (Columbia and Venezuela) and the growth of an anti-imperialist movement, and the sharpening of negro problems in a number of countries, the armed struggle of the rebel tribes in Morocco, etc., etc.). It is only the blind who do not see, and only the opportunists who do not want to understand, the wide perspectives opened out by the simultaneous rise of the revolutionary workers’ movement, and of the national revolutionary movement. From this it follows that the League Against Imperialism, in these circumstances, can play a positive role in widening, uniting and organising the struggle against imperialism in the imperialist centres and in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. But the League can play this positive role only if it follows a correct political and organisational line. And the correct reorientation of the League is only possible on the basis of a correct evaluation of the League’s former activities, on the basis of the necessary self-criticism of the results of its work, and on the basis of exposing the errors it has made in the past.

FROM BRUSSELS TO FRANKFORT

It is not an accident that the League Against Imperialism was formed, was organised and, we may add, began to develop just at the opening of the third period, in the tempestuous times of the rising Chinese revolution. The first congress of the League met in Brussels at the time when the Chinese revolution was pressing forward, when the Kuomintang, which later became the agent of imperialism and counter-revolution, was still united in an alliance with the Communist Party of China, when there still existed in China a wide national-revolutionary united front, although the cracks in it were rapidly widening. The chief characteristic of this period in the sphere of the national liberation movement was that both in the colonial and in the semi-colonial countries the separation of class forces was only beginning, and national reformism, under the influence of the successes of the Chinese revolution, in spite of its constant vaccilations was still tending in the direction of the national revolutionary movement; in the bloc between national reformism and the revolutionary movement of the working and peasant masses, class differentiation had only just begun to develop. The national bourgeoisie still appeared as the leaders of the national liberation struggle in all the most important colonial and semi-colonial countries. But the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat for the leadership of the national movement had begun to grow acute in China even at the time of the Brussels Congress. In India the workers’ movement had already begun to decline after the great struggle of 1921 and 1922. In countries where the petty bourgeoisie headed the national liberation movement, as in Mexico, it was still playing a positive revolutionary role. At the same time, capitalism’s attacks had already begun to produce signs of the leftward movement in the working-class (the Vienna revolt, the Sacco and Vanzetti demonstrations, etc.). In a number of European countries only the first fruits of rationalisation had appeared. The sharpening of all fundamental contradictions of imperialism was only in the first stage of its development. The process of the transformation of international social democracy into social fascism had not yet become fully evident. Responding to the pressure of the working masses, the Second International at its Marseilles congress had considered the colonial question, and had declared in words its support of the colonial revolution. MacDonald was still demanding that negotiations should be conducted with the Wuhan Government, and had not yet come out openly in his role as executioner of the colonial revolutionary movement. The wide petty-bourgeois masses in a number of imperialist countries were moving sharply to the left and had not yet been diverted in the direction of social fascism and fascism.

By the time of the second congress of the League Against Imperialism at Frankfort in July, 1929, the whole international position had undergone a radical change. The Kuomintang had become the party of counter-revolution, the agent of imperialism in China. In India there was a rising revolutionary wave, but just precisely because of this the National Congress, the Swarajists, headed by Motilal Nehru, and the Ghandists, had moved sharply to the right, rejecting the slogan of independence and limiting their demands to dominion status; and meanwhile the workers’ movement was developing enormous strength and assuming the leadership of the national revolution. National reformism in Korea, in the Philippines and in Indo-China had capitulated to imperialism. In Indonesia, Arabia and Egypt national reformism was moving sharply to the right, and seeking an approach to imperialism. In Tunis national reformism had been completely transformed into the tool of imperialism. In Mexico the party of the petty-bourgeoisie had become the party of counter-revolution and the medium of imperialist influence. But at the same time, in Korea, in the Philippines, Indonesia, Indo-China and Persia, great strikes were developing, and peasant revolts in Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Persia. While the national reformists were moving to the right, the workers’ and peasants’ movement was developing, the struggle for leadership of the national movement was growing more acute, and the class contradictions in the colonial and semi-colonial countries were appearing in sharper forms. At the same time, all the fundamental contradictions of imperialism were deepening and becoming more acute. Imperialism’s pressure on the colonies, the class struggle in the imperialist countries, the rivalries between the imperialists, the contradiction between imperialism and the U.S.S.R., had all become extremely sharp and menacing. International social democracy was developing more and more consciously into social fascism, and in a number of countries had assumed a definite social fascist form. Social democracy had come out openly in the role of executioner of the colonial revolution, and drew nearer to national reformism in the struggle against revolution in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. The parties of the Second International no longer even in words defended the U.S.S.R., but came out openly as agitators, propagandists and organisers of the coming war against the U.S.S.R. Considerable sections of the petty-bourgeoisie had passed over into the camp of social fascism and fascism.

Had these changes been unnoticed by the League Against Imperialism, had they remained without influence on it? It cannot be said that such was the case. At its Cologne session the General Council of the League decided to re-orientate the League’s work primarily and principally on the basis of the revolutionary movement of the workers and peasants in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Was this a correct decision? It most certainly was. But was this decision carried into effect with sufficient determination and persistence? The lessons of the Second congress of the League in Frankfort, the results of this congress, compel us to give a negative answer to this question.

RESULTS OF THE FRANKFORT CONGRESS

No one can deny that the Frankfort Congress of the League, even apart from its agitational and propagandist significance, played a positive role in certain connections. It met at the time when the Indian revolution was rising sharply, and it put the problems of the Indian revolution as one of the central points in its deliberations. It met at the moment of the provocative attack on the U.S.S.R., at the moment of the seizure of the Chinese Eastern Railway and the raging campaign of the Second International against the U.S.S.R. Beyond question, the League Congress followed a correct line on these issues, and had a certain significance in the work of mobilising the masses. The Congress met on the eve of the first of August demonstrations, when the international proletariat raised in a sharp form the issues of struggle against imperialism and against the preparations for war on the U.S.S.R., of the defence of the U.S.S.R. and the colonial revolution; it was therefore able to exercise a certain influence in the mobilisation of the masses for this campaign.

The second congress of the League was to a certain extent a battlefield of opposing political tendencies. The left wing of the Congress sharply criticised and exposed the treacherous role of the left social democrats, and in particular the part played by the representatives of the British Independent Labour Party, Maxton and Kirkwood. Gupta, the representative of the Indian National Congress, heard definite enough criticisms of the treachery of the Indian National Congress. The exposure of the true role of the national reformists in Indonesia must be recognised as both accurate and adequate. And in addition, the role of Poale Zion as the agent of British imperialism was shown up with sufficient clarity. The sentimental speeches of the pacifists were sharply enough attacked, and the treacherous role of the Dutch anarchists, who came out in opposition to the U.S.S.R. and to the armed struggle against imperialism, was just as sharply criticised as the attack made by the renegade Wynkoop group (Holland) against the colonial revolution. The treachery of the negro national reformist movement was shown up and exposed. The leading part in the theoretical conflicts which developed at the Congress was played by the representatives of the Chinese workers’ movement; the Belgian Communists exposed the fascist character of the leadership of the Flemish national movement, and the Latin American Communists exposed the treacheries and vacillations of the petty-bourgeois parties. The agenda and discussions at the Congress did not perhaps sufficiently reflect the tremendous and growing role of American imperialism, but the issue of the part played by the United States was at any rate raised.

We should be inclined to count among the positive results of the Congress the fact that it showed up and exposed the drawing together of social reformism, social imperialism and particularly the left wing, and national reformism. The representatives of the British Independent Labour Party, Maxton and Kirkwood, the Dutch left social democrat, Fimmen, the American bourgeois Baldwin, constituted a bloc with the representatives of national reformism, Gupta (Indian National Congress), Hatta (Indonesia), and Pickens (negro bourgeois). Unfortunately, this bloc was not exposed at the Congress itself, and the struggle against it was not carried on sufficiently openly, sharply and decisively on the floor of the Congress.

The changes in the composition of the League’s executive and the strengthening of the influence of the revolutionary wing in the leadership must also be recognised as positive achievements.

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CONGRESS

The shortcomings of the League Congress, and the opportunist errors which developed at it, were the result of the actual composition of the Congress. Because of its composition, the second Congress of the League did not reflect and was unable to reflect those immense social divisions which had developed and were developing in the colonial and semi-colonial countries.

The composition of the Congress did not correspond with the need that the League should base itself mainly on the colonial and semi-colonial countries. Out of 260 delegates only eighty-four came from colonial countries. It must be recognised as a most important defect that a certain part of the delegates representing colonial countries had not come directly from the colonial countries themselves. We do not want to deny that the revolutionary emigrants from colonial countries have a certain importance, but it must be realised that their importance is incomparably less than that of the movement in the colonial countries themselves. The emigrants cannot play a decisive role by themselves. Moreover, among the delegates from the colonial countries the representatives of national reformist organisations were in the majority, and the workers’ and peasants’ organisations had an altogether insufficient representation. At the time when, in the colonial countries themselves, national reformism was moving to the right and drawing nearer to imperialism, when in many countries it had completely capitulated to imperialism, it was represented at the Congress by a considerable numerical majority over the representatives of workers’ and peasants’ organisations. At the time when, in the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the workers’ and peasants’ movement was rapidly developing, and the working-class was assuming the leadership of the national liberation movement, when the differentiation of class forces was being pushed forward more and more rapidly, this whole development was not reflected as it should have been at the Congress, except perhaps in so far as China was concerned. Except for some of the Latin American countries, where the League has its own mass organisation, the representatives of the national movement were selected and sent to the Congress by the central controlling bodies. The representatives of the reformist trade union movement, as a general rule, received their mandates from the upper organisations, from the executives. No attempts were made to get in touch with the lower mass organisations and through these to get delegates elected to the Congress. It must be recognised that in this connection the Communist Parties in the imperialist countries also did not make sufficient effort. This applies equally to the sections of the Youth International. In the trade unions and the mass organisations, insufficient preparations for the Congress were made from the standpoint of mobilising the masses, popularising anti-imperialist slogans, and bringing to the masses the slogans of the League and of the League Congress. The Congress was preceded by a sufficiently wide international mass campaign, either in the imperialist countries or more particularly in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. The result was that the Congress was not representative of the controlling organs of the bodies affiliated to the League rather than of the masses who were united in these organisations. The result was also that Maxton, Kirkwood, Fimmen and others were able to speak in the name of the social democratic workers who were moving to the left, instead of these workers being able to overwhelm and expose them. The revolutionary movement in India and Indonesia had no direct representation at the Congress; the landlord and right national reformist, Gupta, represented even the organisations with left tendencies within the National Congress, while the workers’ and peasants’ organisations in India had practically no direct representation. It can be understood that police persecution and financial difficulties had also made it difficult for these organisations to send their representatives, but at the same time it was absolutely fantastic to try to throw the responsibility for their weak representation on to the workers’ and peasants’ organisations themselves. Even the delegates from the imperialist countries represented the controlling bodies of the organisations affiliated to the League rather than the masses in these organisations.

Owing to its composition, therefore, the Congress did not reflect the present position of the anti-imperialist movement in either the imperialist or the colonial countries. The preparations for the Congress were not carried out from the standpoint of an approach to the masses, of an exposure among the masses of social reformism, petty bourgeois pacifism and petty bourgeois nationalism, This was the essential cause of the serious opportunist errors made at the Congress.

POLITICAL ERRORS OF THE CONGRESS

We have already pointed out that the left wing at the Congress did positive work in exposing social reformism and national reformism. It is true that the manifesto adopted by the Congress, and also the political resolution, contained certain formulations which were not only incorrect, but were absolutely they impermissible; showed an incorrect and opportunist estimation of left social democracy and an altogether inadequate criticism of national reformism.

After an absolutely correct criticism of social democracy on the colonial question, and after a correct characterisation of the “Labour” Government and the “Labour” Party, the Congress manifesto runs–

“Left social democratic parties are for the most part indistinguishable from official social democracy. While the British Independent Labour Party contains elements which have a genuine sympathy and desire for the liberation of the colonial peoples, these elements must sharpen the struggle with the Right Wing, who, constituting a parliamentary majority of the party, give their solid support to the carrying out of an oppressive imperialist policy.”

In the resolution on the general political situation, the same formulation is repeated. Thus the danger of “revolutionary” phraseology from the “left” social traitors is glossed over, and the “left” wing of the Independent Labour Party is put forward in the role of fighters against imperialism, and thereby it is suggested that it is possible for the lefts in the Independent Labour Party to play the part of real fighters against imperialism.

No comment or criticism is necessary. It is true that this part of the resolution was the result of a compromise. In principle, a compromise is perfectly permissible. But what is not permissible is a compromise on a question of principle, a compromise that gives a misleading and false political estimation of the position. The left social democrats are the worst enemies of the colonial peoples. The left social democrats are the most dangerous enemies of the colonial revolution. It is unthinkable that they should be given a certificate for upright conduct. These sentences in the resolution are lying, dangerous, opportunist and impermissible. The League attempted after the Congress to correct this error. When the official journal of the Independent Labour Party welcomed the shameful draft of an Anglo-Egyptian treaty, the British section of the League acted correctly in calling on the Chairman of that Party, Maxton, to denounce it. And when Maxton, after his anti-imperialist speeches at the Congress, refused to support the most elementary demands of the anti-imperialist struggle in relation to the Arab revolt in Palestine, when by his inaction he supported the bloody suppression of this revolt by the Labour Government, the British section expelled him from the League. But this does not alter the fact that the Congress had put forward an absolutely incorrect, lying and opportunist characterisation of the left social democrats. It is clear that this question must be brought to the front throughout the whole League organisation. It is clear that a wide explanatory campaign in connection with the expulsion of Maxton must be carried out in all the League sections.

It cannot be disputed that the Congress gave a similarly weak and “diplomatic” characterisation of the role of the Indian National Congress. The passage in the resolution runs:

“The bourgeoisie in India, as everywhere else, is co-operating with the British exploiters in their ruthless suppression of the peasant and labour movements in India. We welcome the heroic revolutionary struggle of the Indian workers and peasants for the betterment of their economic conditions and against British imperialism. We pledge all support to the Indian nationalist revolutionary movement, and to all elements which are fighting uncompromisingly for the overthrow of the biggest imperialist Power–British imperialism!”

Not a word about the treachery and perfidy of the Indian National Congress. It is clear that this section of the resolution can also hardly escape criticism. It does not bring out the essential fact, namely, the rejection by the Indian National Congress of the slogan of independence. There is not a word in the resolution about the Swarajists and Ghandists and their treacherous acts. We certainly do not expect, and we cannot expect, that the League should adopt Communist resolutions. But every revolutionary worker and peasant and every genuine revolutionary nationalist must repudiate the characterisation given by the Congress both to the Independent Labour Party (and thereby to left social reformism) and to the Indian National Congress (that is, national reformism).

THE TASKS AND METHODS BEFORE THE LEAGUE

If the League wants to become a permanent anti-imperialist mass organisation which is equal to the tasks before it, it must undertake and carry through the following tasks:

It must find the way to reorientate itself, in actual practice and in the most sharp and decisive manner, on the revolutionary workers’ and peasants’ movement in the colonial and semi-colonial countries. The League must be built up on the revolutionary mass organisations in the colonies.

In the imperialist countries the League must turn towards the mass organisations of revolutionary workers. The separate national sections of the League must base themselves on those revolutionary mass organisations which are in fact carrying on a struggle against imperialism. Verbal acceptance and verbal support of the general aims of the League is absolutely insufficient. It is necessary to put life into the League organisations, and to transform them into active organisations which wage a ceaseless struggle against imperialism not only in platonic manifestoes but also in deeds.

In countries where the concrete situation demands it, the League must turn sharply towards the lower mass organisations. In national reformist organisations, and especially in the reformist trade unions of the colonial countries, control frequently lies in the hands of open traitors, capitulators or vacillating reformists, while at the same time the basic and even the district organisations still show revolutionary tendencies. The same situation is frequently to be found in the peasant organisations. In such cases the League must be able to get in touch with the lower organisations over the heads of their central bodies, it must be able to group and unite them around the League and give their work a revolutionary character, leading them into the fight against their treacherous central organisations.

At the present time, within the League Against Imperialism, social reformism, bourgeois pacifism, and national reformist organisations are to be found. Certain of the left social democrats of the type of Maxton, Fimmen, etc., have played and to some extent still play, a leading rôle in the League. Of the national reformists, Gupta (India) and Hatta (Indonesia) played a leading rôle at the Congress itself, and to a certain extent their influence determined the contents of the political resolution. No one contemplates the turning of the League from a non-party mass organisation into a Communist organisation. If the Information Bulletin of the Second International (July 20th), which was entirely devoted to the League Congress, tried to represent the League Against Imperialism as a Communist organisation, if the social democratic organisations supported this version, they thereby only succeeded in proving that they could be of service to the political police, giving confirmation to the police description of the League. The League is not and must not become a Communist organisation. But this does not mean that the left wing of the League should not and will not strive to strengthen proletarian influence in the leadership of the League, to strengthen the influence of the revolutionary workers’ organisations in the national sections of the League in imperialist countries, and to strengthen the influence of the revolutionary workers’ and peasants’ organisations in the colonial countries. But if the Brandler renegades of Communism weep over the “raging attacks on the left social democrats and on the opposition Communists” (Against the Stream, August 3rd), let them go on moaning and weeping. The task of the Communists, the task of the revolutionaries, is precisely to fight the influence of the left social democrats, of the treacherous capitulating national reformists, of the Communist renegades both on the left and on the right of the party, and to expose their true role, which is either directly or indirectly to support imperialism. The case of Maxton, who came forward at the Congress with thundering phrases against imperialism and a couple of weeks later refused to fight for the independence of Egypt and Arabia, shows that the time has come to raise the question of purging the League from elements which are obviously treacherous. It is clear, of course, that neither the struggle against the left social and national reformists, nor the purging of the League, can be carried out mechanically. It is clear that the revolutionary wing of the League must not put all together in one stable the social democrats and the national reformists, but must make a distinction between them. But the revolutionary wing of the League must preserve its own individuality.

If the League rebuilds its whole scheme of work and its whole organisation in the spirit of the tasks outlined above, if the League becomes the ideological and organisational centre for carrying out these tasks, it will be able to play a still more important and positive role in the struggle against imperialism and for the liberation of the colonial peoples, against new imperialist wars and for the defence of the U.S.S.R. and the colonial revolution.

The ECCI published the magazine ‘Communist International’ edited by Zinoviev and Karl Radek from 1919 until 1926 irregularly in German, French, Russian, and English. Restarting in 1927 until 1934. 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/ci/vol-6/v06-n24-nov-01-1929-CI-grn-riaz.pdf