Continuing the defining debates over China in 1927, which require an introduction, by two leading protagonists, Bukharin, below, and Trotsky.

What kind of revolution was happening in China, and what kind of revolution was necessary? Are there ‘stages’ in social transformation that must be passed through? What was the ‘stage’ China was passing through? What is a ‘bourgeois-democratic’ colonial revolution in a world economy dominated by imperialism? Is such a revolution necessary before a Socialist revolution can be contemplated? What class leads such a revolution? Is it possible for a combination of classes to lead such a revolution? What is an ‘anti-imperialist’ united front and who can participate when Marxists defined imperialism as ‘capitalism’s highest stage’? Are the peasantry, the overwhelming majority of China, to lead the revolution? Is peasantry a revolutionary class? Can it, or parts of it, become one? And what is the role of the Communist Party and ultimate, and central, aim of a proletarian dictatorship to remake society in their interests?

All these and many more were the hugely weighty and consequential debates engaged in by the Communist International in the 1920s. Those debates, because of events on the ground and the Opposition yet to be expelled, peaked in 1927. In April of that year anti-imperialist confrontations in Nanjing and imperialist military intervention signaled both greater strength of the anti-imperialist movement, and imperialist resistance to China’s growing unification movement. Worried over militant and left ascendancy the KMT Right under Chaing-Kai-Shek turned his former allies. In April, 297 his Nationalist Army approached Shanghai against the militarist clique in control. Communist and Left KMT forces staged an uprising in the city to wrest control before the National Army entered. As it entered, it shot down its former allies by the thousands and the KMT split between Left and Right. The Left KMT regrouped in Wuhan, including members the Communists, and set up a rival Nationalist base. However, on July 15, 1927 the Left KMT Wuhan government, under military pressure from Chang, turned on their Communist allies purging them from the government and outlawing them.

The First United Front, a policy central to the Comintern’s larger political perspectives in the mid-1920s was not just over, but a disaster in which thousands of the best Communist fighters in China were killed. As an architect of China policy and an ideological defender of United Front, Bukharin defends the policy shortly after the July’s definitive break with the KMT, but well before the Guangzhou uprising.

‘An Abrupt Turn in the Chinese Revolution’ by Nikolai Bukharin from International Press Correspondence. Vol.7 Nos. 41 & 42. July 14 & 21, 1927.

The revolution in China is entering on a new stage of its development and is at the present moment at the apex of its sharpest transition.

The facts show this with the greatest clearness.

The agreement among the generals, from Chiang Kai-shek to Tang Cheng-shi, means that all the decisive, armed forces of the bourgeoisie are grouping themselves round the hangman of Nanking.

The coalition of Chiang Kai-shek, Feng Yu Hsiang and Jen Si-shei means in fact the consolidation of this camp. In spite of inner conflicts and differences of opinion, the Canton troops of Li Ti-sin, together with and in one bloc with this coalition, are conducting a furious struggle against the workers and peasants.

The class basis and the class aim of this coalition are excellently set forth in the declaration of Feng in which he stated, among other things, that in the territory of Wuhan

“the merchants, traders, owners of industrial enterprises and pieces of land are suppressed by the workers and peasants. The Chinese people (!! N B.) do not want such despotism. Even the families of the soldiers at the front are suppressed; their property is confiscated and a number of crimes are being committed in the name of the nationalist party…Some Reds have gained entrance into the Party in order to dominate the Kuomintang movement. (Manchester Guardian 25th June.)

This is how Feng justifies his ultimatum to the government. The attitude of Wuhan is the attitude of complete capitulation. As a matter of fact there already exists an understanding with Nanking. This fact is not altered by the vacillations of some (Wang-Chin-Wei, Chang-Fa-Kui) and the flight of others (Da-Nin-Da). On the one hand there are symptoms of decay, on the other a definite course towards Nanking.

Here it is not merely a question of the dangerousness of the situation, that the Wuhan government has on all sides the mouths of the revolvers of the generals pointing at its temples, in a firm social and class revolutionary situation, persons and groups always display courage. The main question here is that the bourgeois radicals and the intellectuals who are becoming radicalized, are frightened by the sweep of the agrarian, and peasant movement, which has assumed a most acute form and now does not admit of any “manoeuvring”; one must either. place oneself at the head of the agrarian revolution or fire on the peasants. The tremendous acuteness of precisely this question pushes Wuhan behind Feng and Co. into the camp of counter-revolution. The revolutionary, role of Wuhan is as an end.

This is expressed politically in the energetic preparation for the expulsion of the Communists from the Kuomintang; and there is not the least doubt that the C.C. of the Kuomintang will accept this ultimative demand of General Feng and will fulfil it, not out of “fear” but out of “conviction”.

At the same time there has set in a systematic attack on the workers, peasants and Communists, which assumes the form of armed fight and reprisals. Tang Cheng-Shi, who had gone to Changsha in order to “investigate” the affair of the counter-revolutionary coup of the generals, has fully and entirely. approved of the shooting of the peasants. The peasants have proved to be guilty, because, as one can see, they have com mitted “errors”. Tang Cheng-Shi had four Communists executed and instituted the terror against our Party. His troops began to break up the trade unions. The workers’ guard was disarmed. The last news we have received states that in Wuhan itself the Commander of the 35th Corps has issued an order for the expulsion of the Communists from his corps; those who wish to remain in his corps must openly declare their resignation from the Party; those who do not submit to the orders are threatened with shooting.

These facts prove in an eloquent manner that Wuhan has collapsed, that its revolutionary role is at an end, that it has had its day as a revolutionary force, as an organising centre of the revolution. Under such conditions, for the Party of the revolutionary proletariat the following conclusion is absolutely necessary: One must not remain a single moment longer in the “government” of Wuhan. Therefore the Executive Committee of the Comintern was entirely right when it pointed out in good time the necessity for the immediate withdrawal of the Communists from the Wuhan government.

This withdrawal must be effected in a demonstrative manner and must be accompanied by a political declaration of the Party; a declaration which, while explaining the objects of the Communist Party in entering the government, exposes the present policy of Wuhan its fight against the labour movement. its bloc with Nanking, its cowardly silence on the occasions of the executions and shootings, its contempt for the mass of the people.

In this declaration the Communist Party must also lay down its attitude to the Kuomintang.

What conclusions must the Chinese Communists draw from the present events in regard to the Kuomintang? Will withdrawal from the National government involve withdrawal from the Kuomintang also?

In our opinion, no. The treacherous behaviour of the Kuomintang leaders can just as little compel us to withdraw from the whole front of the organisation of the Kuomintang as the treacherous behaviour of the leaders of the British Labour Party removes from the agenda the question of the fight of the Communists for entry into this mass organisation.

Meanwhile, in contradistinction to Great Britain, the state of affairs in China is such that the Communists in the local organisations of the Kuomintang, especially there where these organisations consist of workers and peasants, not only possess influence, but frequently also possess leading influence. Finally, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Communist Party must now go over to illegality. If it wants to be a really revolutionary Party, if it is to equip the masses for the decisive fight against the enemy, who has now welded together. his front throughout the whole of China, then the Communist Party will be compelled to build up its illegal apparatus. But in such conditions it would be particularly wrong and absurd to break with the entire organisation of the Kuomintang along the whole front.

The tactics of the Communists towards the Kuomintang in the present epoch of the Chinese revolution will be determined by these considerations. The Communists must appeal to the masses of the Kuomintang against their leaders. They must increase their work in the depths of the Kuomintang by putting through their platform, by emphatically condemning the “leaders”. They must put forward the popular demands of the masses and rally round them the lower membership of the Kuomintang. On this basis they must prepare the Party Conference of the Kuomintang. Even then, when the C.C. of the Kuomintang adopts a resolution on the expulsion of the Communists (which is highly probable), they must fight for their positions in the Kuomintang in the same way as the Communists did in the Labour Party and as they are doing in the British trade unions.

It is of course necessary that the Communist Party of China conducts a correct policy. Meanwhile, the leadership of the Communist Party of China has in recent times obstinately sabotaged the decisions of the Comintern. Whilst the local functionaries of the C.P. of China led the masses in the fight and frequently died heroically at their fighting posts, the Political Bureau has often violated the instructions of the Comintern.

The following are the facts: The Comintern has systematically given directions regarding the independence of the Communist Party of China, the necessity of letting loose the agrarian revolution, the arming of the workers and peasants, settling accounts with the counter-revolutionary generals and democratising the Kuomintang. The C.I. has day after day urged the C. P. of China along the way di further developing the revolution. Day after day it has declared in the sharpest manner the insufficient determination of the Communist Party of China and the poverty of its slogans.

With regard to the Kuomintang there was pointed out. the inevitability of its conversion into a miserable tool of the counter-revolutionary generals in the event of it not following a decisive course towards developing the agrarian revolution and organising the armed forces of the lower strata. of the population. In the instructions there was repeatedly and systematically pointed out the inevitability of the treachery of the generals, the necessity of crushing the counter-revolutionary officers by the peasants, the necessity of organising revolutionary tribunals for trying reactionary officers etc.

The C.I, while repeatedly characterising the hampering of the agrarian revolution as a criminal policy, called for the organising of the immediate and actual seizure of the land by the peasants from below.

The C.I. attached extraordinarily great importance to the organising of military units consisting of revolutionary workers. In the directions it was expressly proposed that some special corps of workers be set up in which a great number of Communists should be mobilised.

The line of the leadership of the Communist Party of China and its various representatives was subjected to the sharpest criticism. The C.I. warned that it would not stop short of open criticism in the press of the course of the leadership of the C.P. of China, if this course was not changed in the direction of a bold unloosening of the workers’ and peasants’ revolution.

li alter all this, dishonest politicians from the Opposition write: “The instructions of Bukharin were not carried out, because they were of no value; so far as they were carried out, however, they did not serve that class for which they were intended”, then these dishonest politicians justify the sabotage of the revolutionary decisions of the Comintern. One must lose the remnants of elementary honesty, one must become a furiously blind and malicious calumniator in order to be able to write and spread such things, The leadership of the C.C. of the C.P. of China has certainly not stood the fiery test. It must be openly said that it has suffered shipwreck. The Political Bureau of the C.P. of China has hindered the development of the agrarian revolution the whole time by opposing to the inner problems of the revolution the military campaign against Peking and such like. Their formula of the revolution is somewhat as follows: “divert attention to the exterior, united anti-imperialist struggle”, to “exorcise” the growth of class antagonisms, as if it were possible to check the historical process of the class struggle, as if the aims of the Communists were not the fight for the hegemony of the proletariat even in the national revolution, but the fight against this fight!

The attitude of Chen Du Siu with his formula: “First Peking and then we shall see”; the attitude of Tang Ping San who spouted liberal phrases; his attitude regarding “vacation” from the government in order “to improve his health”, this miserable and cowardly quasi explanation; the vote in the Political Bureau of the C.C. of the C.P. of China against the decisions of the Comintern (June 26th) and the rejection of these decisions as “unpractical”; finally, not only the lack of an organisation for defence against reaction in Wuhan but the actual assistance to Wuhan (voluntary handing over of arms on the decisions of the Polit Bureau of the C.C.) all this proves that there are social democratic elements in the leadership of the Communist Party of China.

Characteristic is the fact that the opportunist leaders of the Party of the type of Chen-Du-Siu advocated withdrawal from the Kuomintang (hear, hear!). This would lead to their even greater estrangement from the masses and render easier their compromising activity.

The C.C. of the Young Communist League, contrary to this attitude, in these critical days, fully and entirely endorsed the “unpractical” decisions of the C. I. and protested emphatically in a resolution against the vacillations and wobblings of the C.C. of the C.P. of China; and at the same time adopted a correct attitude both in the question of the confiscation of the land and in the question of arming the workers and peasants, as well as in the question of democratising the Kuomintang.

From this there must be drawn that conclusion which the Comintern has drawn: Extraordinary Conference of the Party, new elections to the Central Committee, ruthless criticism of the leadership, carrying out of the directions of the C.I. decisive fight, up to expulsion from the Party, of those who. are of the opinion that the Party has to act according to the behests of the bourgeois leaders of the Kuomintang.

The Communist Party must, under all conditions, be the main lever of the movement. If there prevails in its leadership such a helpless confusion, there can of course be urged as an extenuating circumstance the youth of the whole Party. Yet there are limits for extenuating circumstances. The Young Communist League is not older than the C.P. of China, and nevertheless it has adopted a correct line. Precisely because the Party is the main lever of the movement, one cannot avoid adopting all measures in order to draw the appropriate lessons from the behaviour of the C.C. The E.C.C.I. appeals, therefore to the Party members and demands the convocation of an extraordinary Conference, no matter how difficult this may be under the conditions obtaining.

II.

The new stage of the Chinese revolution confronts the Party of the proletariat with tasks of the greatest complexity and difficulty.

The fronts of the class struggle are now very sharply de- fined:

The feudal oppressors with Marshal and “dictator” Chang Tso Lin at the head.

The liberal-bourgeois bloc of the “progressive” generals with Chiang Kai-shek at the head.

The radical bourgeois and petty bourgeois group of Wuhan, which feels itself to be drawn to the bourgeoisie and up to the present is suspended in mid-air.

The struggling workers, peasants and city poor.

If one wished to make use of the “Russian” analogy one could say that there stand before us: 1. Monarchists; 2. Cadets; 3. social revolutionaries; 4. Bolshevik camp. Yet if the Chinese groupings, according to their class significance, correspond to the “Russian”, nevertheless all these historical analogies are at bottom incorrect, for the relations of the same classes in China, owing to inner as well as outer causes, are different.

The fight against imperialism on the part of the bourgeoisie is still being carried on, although the “fighters” shoot workers and peasants. The radical social revolutionary clique has almost, but not quite, united with the liberal bourgeoisie. At the same time, in the fight against the workers, in the fight against the peasants, the three social groupings are acting parallel, while they are gradually approaching each other on the basis of common political methodology” towards the Communists. The fire is directed against the Communists from all sides. It is not particularly agreeable, under such conditions, to criticise sharply the leadership of a brother Party which is under the fire of the enemy who is prepared to annihilate it. But we must not forget that the real Communist fighters are perishing, and that the whole of the cadres of the Party can be crushed if the policy of confidence in the heads of the Kuomintang is conducted at a time when the basis for this confidence has already disappeared. Complete clarity is necessary from every point of view.”

There is not the least doubt that the central force which holds power, namely the bourgeoisie, which is still anti-imperialist but towards the Chinese people is already counter-revolutionary, will direct its, fire against the Party of the proletariat. The proletariat must reply to this by rallying the masses together and with the slogan of the dictatorship of the workers, the peasants and the city poor and all other slogans arising therefrom.

One of the questions which has been but little discussed is the question of the economic programme of the revolution in the towns. If one examines the matter more closely one sees that the radical government of Wuhan, even in its best times, did not have any solid economic basis, So long as it tolerated and permitted the labour movement and was in a bloc with the Communist Party the working and peasant masses marched forwards. The big bourgeoisie fled. The factories and works were closed, likewise the banks. The sabotage on the part of the capitalists was in full swing. The “key positions” were deserted. The radicals of Wuhan did not venture to take possession of them, But upon these “key positions” there depends to a not inconsiderable extent the whole economy in general. The result was that we had the following “paradoxical situation: Wuhan had a number of the greatest disadvantages of “war communism” without thinking of any Communism, and also without having a single one of its advantages. In other words, the contradictory character of the position led to a loss of almost every economic basis.

The same problem now stands before the dictatorship of the workers and peasants. At the VII. Enlarged Executive the que stion was solved in the sense of the nationalisation of these key positions, should their owners sabotage production. This solution is the only correct solution. On the one hand this provides the possibility of a very strong position in the labour question. On the other hand the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry obtains far greater economic possibilities. There will not exist that radical contradiction which existed under the regime of the Wuhan government.

The bloc of the lower strata of the people, before all the bloc of the workers and peasants, that is the slogan of the Communist Party standing on the agenda,

Does there exist a perspective in regard to the further development of the revolution? Does there exist a prospect of the realisation of this bloc? What is the explanation for the fact that the armies of the enemy are so little disintegrated, that they are fairly strong on all fronts?

Here one must again remember that all armies, without distinction, are mercenary armies of professional soldiers. who, for the greater part, have long been ousted from the process of production. Soldiering is for them a profession. They receive pay, from what source (before all from the peasants) is very clear to them. They frequently have no strong connections either with the city poor or with the village. They serve those who pay them. Of course, one must not by any means understand all this in the simple and absolute sense of the word. But when one grasps the whole limitedness of these relations, one must arrive at the conclusion that here there exist great difficulties for the revolution.

One must not, however, forget the most important thing. the tremendous sweep of the movement of the lower strata of the people in the town and in the country. In spite of the fittious terror in Shanghai all reports state that the workers have not sat with folded arms but are preparing with admirable endurance and heroism for fresh struggles. In Canton, all “methefis” of kubience have been employed, from bribery with money up to execution and torture; and notwithstanding Communists are remaining in the most important organisations of the working class. In the villages the leaders of the peasants are spied out and hanged. And still the movement does not come to a standstill. The bourgeois press brings terrifying reports of this movement. Thus, for example, the London “Times” of June 23, informed its readers regarding the state of affairs in Feng’s area as follows:

“The movement of the Red Spears is assuming dangerous proportions. The number of those armed is estimated at a quarter of a million. The League (Red Spears N.B.) is growing tremendously, and is permeated by Communist organisations which perfect the organisation, propagate Communism and convert the originally successfully (1) thought out self-defence organisation into a Communist movement which destroys property and offers resistance to all authority. The “Red Spears”, if they are not drastically dealt with, can soon become a national danger”.

Of course the honest “Times” intentionally frightens its Chinese partners in order to promote the work of bloody sup pression. The “Times”, of course, exaggerates the danger and intentionally writes nonsense regarding the “Communist” (!!) damaging of property”. But if the peasantry had been crushed, the “honest” enemies would speak differently and give different information.

That is the subjective-class aspect of the matter.

What is its objective aspect? The objective aspect consists in the fact that the liberal bourgeoisie will scarcely be able to solve the social crisis on their own account. The so-called “objective tasks of the revolution” consist in creating a market for the Chinese industry, which, however, is impossible with the existing poverty of the peasantry. This market can be created by means of a redistribution of the land on the one hand, and by means of the consistent removal of the parasitical pressure of imperialism on the other. But the mechanism of social relations is such that the first task the task of the agrarian revlution cannot be solved by the bourgeoisie. Neither can they solve the second task; for to fight imperialism right up to the end while fighting against the workers and peasants in their own country is likewise impossible. Therein consists the objective basis for the further development of the revolution, no matter how severe those defeats and those trials may be which it is now undergoing.

This does not at all mean that the victory of the workers and peasants is a foregone conclusion.

This only means that great prospects exist for the victory of the second revolution, the plebian outcome of the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

As a matter of fact the question will be decided by fighting and only by fighting. It is for this aim, for the victory of the workers and peasants that the Communist Party of China must now work.

Let us look back a little.

This is what the leaders of our Opposition write on the events in Wuhan:

“The policy of staking the cards on the Wuhan government as the organising revolutionary centre has suffered a collapse which is disastrous for the Chinese revolution.

The circle is complete. The tactic employed by our Party leadership in China is a classic example of the carrying out of a menshevik tactic in a bourgeois-democratic revolution” (Declaration of July 7).

We take up another document of our heroes, namely the draft resolution proposed at the April Plenum of the C.C. and then introduced by Comrades Trotzky and Vuyovitch at the last Plenum of the E.C.C.I. (end of May last). In the section entitled: “Our most important tasks” we read:

“It is necessary to lend Wuhan the most active and all-round support, for which reason the defence against the Cavaignacs must be organised. In the immediate future all efforts must be concentrated on giving all-round help to Wuhan in order to organise and consolidate it.”

Of course the speech goes on to deal with removing the unreliable elements etc. But this was also contained in the directions of the Comintern. That is not the question. The question is whether the honourable critics in the Opposition.

Let us begin with the “bloc of the four classes”. Here they have or have not staked the cards on Wuhan. Did they or opposition attacks Martynov, declares him to be the godfather did they not consider it as the organising centre? Did they of this theory, and then fiercely assails the menshevism of or did they not propose all-round support for Wuhan? the C.C. But what do the facts say?

One only needs to put this question in order to see how worm-eaten and politically dishonest is the criticism on the part of the Opposition. For if the support of Wuhan was menshevism, how then have these people the audacity to forget so quickly their own proposals.

Let us proceed further. In the said “declaration” the Opposition arrived at the following conclusion in connection with the events in Wuhan:

“It is not a question of the fate of the Chinese revolution only, but also of the fate of the Soviet Union, for there exists not the least doubt that the dangers of war are approaching and becoming exceedingly acute in connection with the events in Hankow.”

That is magnificent. If, however, formerly the government in Hankow was hardly distinguished in any way from Nanking and such like, how then does the alteration of its policy bring nearer to an extraordinary extent the war dangers?

And finally, if it was formerly impossible “to stake the cards” etc., why then did they not propose at the Plenum of the E.C.C.I. that the Communists withdraw from the government? And why then was the “menshevist” tactic of entering the government, which was adopted at the Enlarged Plenum of the E.C.C.I., not combated?”

It suffices only to “touch upon” this question in order to see how helplessly the “saviours” of the Party flounder about in the main and fundamental questions of our tactics in China.

It would be necessary to give a survey of what the leaders of our Opposition have spoken and written regarding China in order to prove what a tremendous muddle of contradictory assertions, “lines”, “tactics”, “strategies”, slogans and the like exist in the “stock of ideas” of our Opposition. For Radek, feudalism does not exist in China, with Zinoviev it is in full bloom. According to Trotsky, the bourgeoisie has hardly ever played a revolutionary role in China; according to Radek, it was a “friend of the workers”. According to Zinoviev, it was necessary to support Wuhan with all means; according to Trotsky (at the very same time!), Wuhan did not exist at all, we should organise against Wuhan a centre of dual power. Ac cording to Radek it was necessary to leave the Kuomintang precisely at that time when he (Radek) recommended that our Party participate in the Kuomintang government. Alski furiously attacks the Party line on account of its one-time support of the Kuomintang, and at the same time he devotes a book to the Kuomintang, and so forth.

It is not surprising that with such a rich selection one can at all times pick out a “proof” for every possible case; that we “were right”. A miserable, eclectic, inprincipled (pardon the word) “line”!

The oppositional “critics” have seized upon my last article in order to “prove” how much in the right they were and how greatly the C.C. and the E.C.C. I. betray Leninism, the proletariat etc.

The authors of the unending “pamphlet”, “A New stage of the Chinese revolution”, with Trotsky at the head, after quoting my words that the liberal bourgeoisie at present possesses both the military and the political preponderance, “ironically” say:

“But who helped the liberal counter-revolutionaries to secure their military preponderance? Who has created confidence in Chiang Kai-shek? Who demanded of the Communists actual subordination to Chiang Kai-shek? Who supported Feng Yu Hsiang and boosted him?” etc. And further:

Who armed the Liberals with this traditions? (The tradition of the national struggle for emancipation, N.B.) Who built up expressly for them the abstract theory of the national revolution which will be completed with the help of the bloc of four classes? And so on and so forth. Bukharin must look at himself in the mirror again and not whine because a horn is crooked,”

But enough of these magnificent pearls from the splendid pen of Trotsky: “Arkadi” speaks very “beautifully”, but is not difficult to perceive that the game is always played with faked cards.

Comrade Radek declared on the 15th March 1927, when describing the general state of affairs in China:

“The Canton government has taken advantage of this situation, which carries disintegration into the camp of the militarists. It decides on the campaign against the North which subjects this bloc of the antiimperialist bourgeoisie, the peasants, the town petty bourgeoisie and the workers to a test in the great arena of the decisive capitalist area of China.” (Isvestia of March 15. K. Radek: “The Second Anniversary of the death of Sun Yat Sen”. Emphasis by Radek.)

It is true, the word “four” is not mentioned here. But (and I hope the Opposition will understand this) this does not alter the matter, for one can count the classes of Radek’s bloc on one’s fingers and they will be found to be exactly four. But still there is one difference between Martynov and Radek in this question, for Martynov said that the leading force of this bloc is the bourgeoisie. What, however, did Radek say?

Radek defined the nature of the Canton government as follows:

“The events of Shanghai (here we are speaking of the events of May 30, 1925, on the occasion of the anniversary of which Comrade Radek was writing. N.B.) have strengthened the first Workers’ and Peasants’ Government of China, namely, the Canton government.” (Mif: “The Lessons of the Events of Shanghai”. Comrade Radek’s preface, pag. 4.)

Thus for Radek there exists the “Bloc of four Classes”. While Martynov speaks of a bourgeois government, Radek has already set up this bloc beforehand under the hegemony of the proletariat. And these people have the audacity to come forward afterward in the role of judges!!!

Perhaps it would be of interest to learn who supported Feng Yu Hsiang and who boosted him? Perhaps here also you would like to look into the “mirror”?

This is what Comrade Radek, the leader of the opposition in the Chinese question, wrote concerning the events of the year 1923:

“At that time the National Movement acquired two state centres around which it commenced to crystallize. The first of these was the revolutionary Canton government with Sun Yat Sen at the head, the second was the army of Marshal Feng Yu Hsiang in the North.” (Radek: “A New Stage in the Chinese Revolution”. “Novy Mir”, No. 3, page 249.)

Thus Radek classed Feng alongside of Sun, whose revolutionary services is not denied by anyone.

Did the C.C., perchance, propose not to frighten the bourgeoisie, and did it make the bourgeoisie the main buttress of its entire tactics?

In the same work of Radek we read on page 159:

“The Canton policy must, as far as possible, avoid repelling the bourgeois strata by taking premature steps. At the same time the Canton government cannot avoid perceiving that the greatest danger threatening them is an indifferent, not to say hostile attitude towards them on the part of the masses of the people, the workers and peasants.” And this was written in February 1927!

These are examples. Let us now consider the question. from its wider aspect. Wherein consist the most important differences of opinion on the Chinese question?

Firstly, in the fact that the opposition dishonestly denies its own actions. Nobody at the time was against supporting Canton, Feng and the like. Now, however, the opposition acts as if it had stood on one side.

Secondly, in the fact that while the C.C. and the leadership of the E.C.C.I. considered it tactically expedient, at certain stages, to form a bloc with those forces conducting a fight against imperialism, even if, as a class, they are hostile to the proletariat, the theoreticians of the opposition have more than once ventured to praise the bourgeoisie (See, for example, how Radek places the bourgeoisie on the same level with the proletariat).

Thirdly. Let us put aside this “game” of the opposition. Let us act as if it had never existed. We then have before us the following picture: The opposition now sees the original sin in the tactics of the C. C. in the fact that the C. C, at certain stages, considered permissible a bloc with the bourgeoisie, whilst according to Lenin this can never be permitted at all. Trotsky (a well-known teacher of Leninism), as well as Zinoviev and the rest put forward the assertion that these tactics are contrary to the teachings of Lenin concerning our tasks in the bourgeois democratic revolution. At the same time they produce quotations which relate to the attitude of the Bolsheviki towards the Cadets. It is known that the Mensheviki were for a bloc with the Cadets, while the Bolsheviki were against it.

This argument would be convincing if China were Russia. The “critics do not avoid confusing an imperialist country, a subject of imperialist policy, with a colonial country, an object of this policy.

The following, however, is what Lenin wrote on the East:

“The Communist International must enter into temporary agreements, even into alliances with the bourgeois democracy of the colonies and the backward countries. It must not, however, become fused with them, but must in any event preserve the independence of the proletarian movement even in its embryonic form.” (Lenin: Vol. XIX. page 27.)

Formerly, the permissibility of a bloc with the bourgeois forces which are actually fighting against imperialism was not disputed by anybody. Now it is being disputed.

Lenin has sketched in a splendid manner the conditions under which such bloc formations and alliances are permissible:

“…we as communists must and shall support bourgeois movements for emancipation in colonial countries only when the movements are really revolutionary, when their representatives do not prevent us form, educating the broad masses of the exploited in the revolutionary spirit. When these conditions do not exist the communists in these countries must fight against the reformist bourgeoisie, who also belong to the heroes of the II. International,” (Lenin: Vol. XVII, pages 275/276.)

That is just how the Comintern has acted. So long as the “bourgeois movements for emancipation” fulfilled. these conditions we supported it. When it ceased to fill these conditions we began to fight energetically against it. This was the case. first with the right Kuomintang, now it is the case with the heads of the left Kuomintang.

What do we gain in the end?

We gain by the welding together of the forces of the masses, this last “argument” of the revolution.

It is true that Comrade Trotsky now denies even obvious facts. Thus, for instance. he characterizes the events of the campaign against the North in the following manner:

“The attack on the North had as a result that the bourgeoisie became stronger and the workers weaker.”

But here again everybody will prefer to believe the “Chinese Expert” of the opposition, Comrade Radek, who writes as follows:

“The organising of the peasants for the fight against the big landowners and against their armed divisions, the Mintuans, against the Gentry who represent the interests of the big landowners in the village, the organising of the peasants’ unions, the peasant committees, the armed peasant detachments these are the most important results of the campaign against the North.” (Radek: “The Second Anniversary etc.”)

The most “convincing” argument of the opposition is the argument that we “run at the tail” of events, that we belatedly follow the directions of the opposition clique.

But this argument is ridiculous, for it is a “Trotskyist” argument.

That is what Comrade Trotsky thought of Lenin, when he represented the matter as if Lenin, in 1917, “changed his views”. whilst he, Trotsky, had “foreseen” everything in the world. The whole Party knows the value of this “convincing argument of the present-day, loud-mouthing, oppositional Pythia.

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/1927/v07n41-jul-14-1927-inprecor-op.pdf

PDF of issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1927/v07n42-jul-21-1927-inprecor-op.pdf