The head of the Eastern Department of the Profintern, Lev Heller, with a thorough analysis of the explosive growth of the Chinese workers’ movements in the mid-1920s

‘The Labour Movement in China’ by L. Heller from Communist International. Vol. 2 No. 17. October, 1925.

I.

FOURTEEN years have passed since the time of the First Chinese revolution. But the main task set by the revolution—the liberation and unity of China—has not yet been fulfilled to this day. It is true the dynasty of the Manchus no longer exists; China has been proclaimed a republic, but China is neither free nor united. Up to now the financial, customs and railway managements, the foreign policy and to a certain extent the internal administration of China, still remain under the control of the imperialists. To this very day British, Japanese and other warships are still stationed in the most important Chinese ports. To this very day the Liao-Dun peninsula and the Southern Manchurian road are still in the hands of Japan, and even now Wei-hai-Wei has not yet been evacuated by the British. At present the concessions, with their regime of extra-territoriality, consular courts for foreigners and complete absence of rights for the Chinese population, still flourish in all industrial and trading centres. China is a semi-colony.

Very little has been done towards the uniting of China. On the contrary, China has become still more split up during the period of republicanism and the centrifugal forces have increased. The power of the central Peking Government is to a large extent delusive while the real power in the localities belongs to the “Dudjuns” (military governors).

The internecine strife of the Dudjuns occupies the entire recent republican history of China.

There is no need to refer in detail to the confusion and complicated history of the struggle of the various military groupings. It suffices to say that the interests of the Dudjuns and the imperialists coincided on one point which is a decisive point: both the one and the other were interested in splitting up China. The imperialists preferred to have to deal with a split-up and disorganised China, in order to rob it more easily, in order to seize larger morsels of China with impunity and in order, while supporting a fictitious sovereignty of China, actually to maintain a colonial regime. The Dudjuns, who in words posed as the uniters of China, in reality also preferred to have to deal with a weak delusive central government, so as to be able to boss their “own” territories without control. And the endless struggle which the most influential militarists waged among themselves led to a struggle for the extension of “their own” territory: the more territory they had, the more income would they receive from the population they were plundering and the easier it was for them to levy a large army which is the mainstay of the Dudjun’s power. This internecine struggle of the Dudjuns was supported by the imperialist governments, who supplied money, arms and war munitions. The supported Dudjuns in turn took up their “orientation” towards the “power” which financed them, assisting her in the struggle with competitors, asserting pressure on the Peking government, or even openly changing it in the interests of the foreign government that had financed them. And thus for the fourteen years of existence of the Chinese Republic, and depending on the weight of one or other militarist clique, a Japanophile cabinet was replaced by an Anglophile cabinet and, with a fresh change in, the military situation, the latter has once more made way for a Japanophile cabinet. Only in the South, in the Kwantung province, has the national-revolutionary Party (Kuomintang) been able to maintain power with the greatest of difficulties after having suffered temporary defeats.

II.

The difficulties lying in the path of the Chinese people in their struggle for liberation are, as we have seen, tremendous. It will be necessary to vanquish such hostile forces as world imperialism in its most concentrated form, with which very influential elements within China itself have become closely allied; these are military cliques on the one hand and the “tradesmen” bourgeoisie on the other. Whereas the militarists were an armed fist in the hands of imperialism, who ruined and split up China by military methods, the “tradesmen” bourgeoisie served the cause of imperialism by peaceful, economic but none the less actual, methods. These merchants are the numerous Chinese trading-middlemen, who, before the war were the majority, who served the interests of the foreign capitalists, generally on a commission basis. Foreign firms are generally centred in large ports like Shanghai, Tientsin, Hong-Kong, Hankow and others. Not knowing the language, the trading customs, the market and the credit capacity, the foreign firms have recourse to the services of Chinese middlemen “traders” for the execution of their import and export operations, for the successful disposal of Chinese raw material and with a view to placing the imported goods on the Chinese market. This merchant bourgeoisie, participating in the robbery of the country and the ruin of peasants and artisans, becomes an eager servant of imperialism with which they are connected by a community of interests. The larger the role of foreign capital, the more raw material they export and goods they import, the more extensive is the field of activity for the middlemen and the more considerable the profit they draw from their activities as middlemen.

Thus it is evident the wars of the Dudjuns and the “peaceful” work of the middlemen have equally assisted the imperialists to hold down China in suppression and slavery.

Only during the last few years have those social forces developed in China which may be opposed to the tremendous pressure of imperialism from without and the dislocation brought by the Dudjuns and traders from within. These forces are the newly-born Chinese industrial bourgeoisie and the young Chinese proletariat.

III.

These forces are the product of the last decade. Only during the European war of 1914-18 did the industrialisation of China proceed at an accelerated pace. Industrial centres with compact masses of the proletariat were founded which served at the same time as a basis for extensive national and Labour movements.

What was the importance of these new social forces? How did they influence the process of the struggle with colonial oppression which had commenced even under the Manchus and which had found its outstanding expression in the Boxer rising (1900) and in the overthrow of the Manchu dynasty itself (1911)?

The tremendous profits of the Chinese undertakings, which sprang up during the war, when dividends of roo per cent. or higher were no rare occurrence, rendered nationalistic the newly-formed Chinese industrial bourgeoisie. They naturally wanted in future also, i.e., after the end of the war, to continue exploiting their own workers and to remove as much as possible the dangerous competition of foreign capitalists. This should have made the Chinese industrial capitalists take up a new formation and become the most energetic skirmishers in the national struggle, but in reality this was not the case.

First of all this bourgeoisie is weak. In the most important branches of industry, with the exception perhaps of textiles and flour milling, hinge capital plays a secondary and even third-rate role in comparison with foreign capital. This is the case with the railways, sea and river transport, mining (coal, iron, zinc, tin, antimony, quicksilver), metallurgy, shipbuilding and finally in banking affairs which “fertilise” the entire industry. Everywhere there is Japanese, British and American capital either in a “pure” form or, for the sake of appearance, masked under the guise of mixed Chino-Japanese or still rarer, Chino-British enterprises, in which power really belongs to foreign capital, which has undoubtedly greater weight than the national (Chinese).

But there are still two more circumstances which lessen the importance of the Chinese industrial bourgeoisie in the national liberation movement. One of these is of an economic order—the combination of trading-middlemen’s activities with industrial activities—in the same hands, which is no rare occurrence in China. There are two souls in the breasts of this kind of Chinese bourgeoisie (and there are many of them); one is the middleman’s which inclines towards compromise and collaboration with foreign capitalists; the other is industrial which inclines towards a struggle with them. The struggle cannot be particularly decisive if for this alone. But there was also another reason of a political nature—the early and unambiguous class actions of the young Chinese proletariat in the political arena.

IV.

Whereas the role of the Chinese bourgeoisie in the national-liberation movement has, for the above-mentioned reasons, been less than might have been expected, the role of the Chinese proletariat has been immeasurably greater than might have been supposed especially if we bear in mind the smallness of its numbers and its youth. If there may have been doubts about this earlier, the events of this year have proved this with dazzling clearness.

The tasks set by the 1911 revolution have remained unfulfilled because there have not been the forces which could change the social relations which have been forming throughout a period of centuries in old China and the tasks are now beginning to be executed beneath our very eyes in the only possible way—the mass movement of millions; but it is not the industrial bourgeoisie—the seemingly providential leader in the struggle against foreign imperialism—-which 1s leading the movement, but the Chinese proletariat, which has united masses of merchants, artisans and intellectuals, a certain portion of the middle bourgeoisie, with the sympathy of extensive masses of the peasantry–a movement which in the South and in some places in the centre is acquiring organised and active forms.

It stands to reason, of course, that the Labour movement did not rise to these heights all at once. It massed its forces, closely binding itself up with the national movement, neutralising the favourable moments in the sharp struggle between the imperialists outside China and the militarists among themselves within China.

The first operations of the Chinese workers were of an economic nature. They coincided with the time of a sharp anti-Japanese struggle led by the students (1919). During this first period which covered almost three years, up to the second half of 1922, the Labour movement, which was in substance, spontaneous, did not meet with any serious obstacles. In the majority of cases the workers of foreign enterprises went on strike. In defending their economic interests, the workers indirectly strengthened the position of Chinese industry and assisted the national movement, just as in India and in Egypt it is this very strike movement which flowed into the stream of the national movement and gave the latter volume and political significance. Therefore, it is not surprising that the famous strike of the Hong-Kong workers in the spring of 1922, which was directed against the British capitalists, did not only evoke a sympathetic response throughout the entire country, but also was given material support by the bourgeoisie of the South.

That situation soon changed. The strike movement extended to embrace Chinese enterprises also. The Chinese bourgeoisie changed their tactics, taking up an openly hostile position towards the Labour movement. This was already seen.at the time of the strike of the Tian-Shang coal miners in October, 1922, which was suppressed by armed force with great severity. The united reactionary forces dealt still more savagely with the striking railwaymen of the Peking-Hankow line in February, 1923. The military dictator of that time, Wu-Pei-Fu, drowned the strike in blood.

The defeat of the railwaymen acted as a signal for a general offensive of all the forces of reaction against the workers throughout the entire country. The trade unions, which they had managed to form by that time, were dissolved; their premises were sealed and the leaders arrested. Even the workers’ co-operatives, schools and clubs were closed almost everywhere. The Labour movement throughout the whole of China (with the exception of Canton) was driven underground and it was only in a very few places that semi-legal workers’ organisations existed.

Such was the state of affairs until the second half of 1924. The Pacific Ocean Transport Workers’ Conference, which met in June, 1924, was on the border-line of this period. The Shamin (*a foreign concession in Canton) strike which broke out in July and which; like the Hong Kong strike of 1922, was directed against the foreign capitalists, once more showed the whole of China the importance of the offensive of the working class for the national liberation movement.

In the autumn of 1924 a coup d’état took place in Peking. The Chi-li group suffered defeat. Wu-Pei-Fu, who not long before had been omnipotent dictator, fled to the valley of the Yang-tse-Kiang, power was transferred to the Government of Djan-Tsi-Djua. Not having any considerable military forces at its own disposal, this regime was obliged to fluctuate between the hostile military groupings and Chang Tso-Lin and Feng-Yui-Sian. At the same time this government manceuvred with the Kuomintang and thereby with the national liberation movement, which—particularly in connection with the journey of the Kuomintang leader, Sun-Yat-Sen, to Northern China—had become greatly strengthened in Peking and Shanghai within a very short period, as in general in Northern China, which up to then had been little affected by the movement.

This livening up of the political situation, was also immediately reflected on the Labour movement.

The propagandist and organisational work, which had been carried on during the first period, had not been in vain, as experience has shown. The suppressed Labour movement once more showed signs of life. The railwaymen’s and miners’ organisations which had been driven underground became strengthened and extended, the schools which had formerly existed were opened up anew and new courses for workers were instituted. But the work was not restricted to reforming and restoring the Labour movement to its former proportions. The commencement of 1925 was marked by outstanding activities of the most numerical and hitherto backward detachments of the Labour army in China—the textile workers.

There is certainly nothing surprising that it was just this section that was the last to enter the struggle. This is to a certain extent explained by the composition of this form of labour. Women and child labour are mainly employed, comprising as they do three-quarters of the total number of workers. But once they have entered the ranks of the fighting proletariat, they immediately become attached to the Labour movement on an extensive scale. The strikes of textile workers in Tsin-Dao and Shanghai aroused the whole of Chinese public opinion and introduced clarity into the unformed struggle, which the radical intellectuals had waged against the government of Djan-Tsi-Djua. The killing of workers by Japanese overseers in Tsin-Dao and Shanghai and the shooting at a peaceful demonstration on May 30th by the British police, were a prologue to the Shanghai events, which found so loud a response throughout the country and led to such unprecedented force on the wave of the national movement which swept over the whole of China. The extent of the national and Labour movements of the whole of the last decade may be summarised in this way.

V.

The main pivots of the entire movement are the strikes in Shanghai and Hong Kong. The attention of the whole of China is drawn to them; they mobilised all forces of the revolution and the counter-revolution, not only within but also outside of China.

The Council, of Shanghai Trade Unions which was formed at the very commencement of the strike, very soon became the acknowledged centre of the Labour movement.

It enjoyed immense popularity not only in Shanghai itself, but throughout the entire country. Not only did the workers’ organisations and separate groups of workers go to the Council with their affairs, but all kinds of institutions entered into communication with it, the civil and military authorities entered into negotiations with it and consequently all the hatred of the imperialists was concentrated on it; they tried untiringly and by all possible measures to undermine its authority. In the United Committee (which included besides the Council of Trade Unions also the Council of Students’ organisations, the Committee of Street Unions containing small traders), the Council of Trade Unions was undoubtedly the most influential organisation, which led the remaining bodies with it. It did not only develop extensive propaganda and organisational work among the strikers, but with the aid of its daily political and trade union newspaper, and a specially formed press bureau, it influenced the moulding of public opinion in a very decided manner, as also the growth of national and class consciousness of the Chinese masses. In Shanghai its authority among the workers was indisputable.

The Executive Committee of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions led the Hong Kong strike, which broke out in May of this year, with equally brilliant results.

As a result of the five months duel between this young proletarian organisation only just formed and predatory British imperialism which had let loose all its economic, financial, diplomatic and military resources, wealthy Hong Kong was ruined and the Hong Kong strikers, led by the Canton Federation, stand as firmly and unanimously as on the first day of the strike.

The currents—national and labour—merged in the Shanghai strike. In the combination of the far-reaching national and comparatively modest workers’ demands, both sides of the strike found their expression. It is clear that at first the main current was national anti-militarist. The striking workers were an army fighting for the interests of the nation as a whole. It is not surprising that the majority of the nation supported them. With the exception of the large, mainly merchant bourgeoisie, the masses of the petty and even the middle urban bourgeoisie rallied round the working class and created an atmosphere not only of sympathy, of the dimensions of this movement on the one hand and of the maintenance and length of the strike on the other.

The Hong Kong strike, which was a direct continuation of the Shanghai strike, has, however, one essential difference: it bears an exclusively political nature, being the pure expression of the national liberation struggle, waged with revolutionary methods of the proletariat.

VI.

In the events of the past few months, the role of the working class as the leader of the national liberation movement in China has been displayed with complete clearness. The struggle of the working class has become a ruling force, whose influence has tested all the social groupings and political factors operating and crossing one another in this tremendous country. Just as a strong magnet attracts iron shavings, so does the working class rally around itself frothy, vacillating masses of the petty bourgeois in the person of tradesmen, artisans and students. These latter made a great noise, developed tremendous propaganda and agitational activity throughout the entire country (in Shanghai alone there were about 3,000 student agitators) but they completely forfeited the independent leading role which they had undisputably wielded at the time of the anti-Japanese campaign in 1919. Its slogans were issued not by them, but by the Shanghai Council of Trade Unions. In the United Committee the leading role belonged not to the students’ organisations but to the same Council of Trade Unions on which all the hatred of the imperialists and merchants was concentrated and towards which the Chinese masses turned their glance. As a powerful centre, loudly emitting the voice of the fighting proletariat, it led the revolutionary masses not only of Shanghai, but also of the entire country, right up to the sources of the Yang-Tse-Kiang and heights of far Sytchuan. By this activity the Shanghai Soviet of Trade Unions has many traits in common with the Petersburg Soviets of Workers’ Deputies at the time of our first revolution.

Yet a further analogy. Just as during the Russian revolution in 1905 the workers returning from the towns carried the revolutionary “infection” into the countryside and aroused it to revolt, so also the still weak peasant movement in China is nevertheless under the undoubted influence, but also of active support. Therein lies the secret essence of the Labour movement. It is well-known that the peasant movement is stronger than anywhere else in the Kwantung province, where under the Kuomintang Government there is an open legal development of the Labour movement. There also the peasant movement is concentrated in 22 rural districts, (“Sisni”) which closely adjoin Canton, a large workers’ centre.

In Central China the Henang province is the centre of the peasant movement where the role of the peasant agitator, who finds a good basis in a number of favourable conditions, is played by railwaymen who have a very strong and influential organisation in this province.

VII.

The strikes and the extensive national movement connected therewith have strongly influenced the entire internal and foreign policy of China. Both the Peking Government and the militarist groupings were compelled to take up some kind of definite stand with regard to the national movements. Teng-Yui-Sian, chief of the First People’s Army, from the very first sided with the People’s Movement. In quite a number of appeals and manifestoes, he condemned the imperialists and their toadies, conducted appropriate propaganda in his army which he openly placed at the disposition of the national liberation movement. Yao-Vei-Tzyun, commander of the Second People’s Army, and Sun-Yao, commander of the Third, acted more cautiously and with more restraint. Nevertheless the extent of the movement compelled them to come nearer to him to seek support in him in the coming fight with the Mukdenites. These latter in the person of Chang-Tso-Lin took up a definitely hostile position. The activities of the Mukden generals in Shanghai, Tsin-Dao, Tian-Shang, Tientsin, the murder and shooting of workers and revolutionaries, their persecution of the trade union movement, the closing down of the trade unions and arrests of the leaders showed clearly to the widest masses the real face of the Mukdenites as the hirelings of the imperialists and as the most dangerous enemies of the Chinese people. This denunciation of the role of Chang-Tso-Lin before the entire nation will have tremendous significance in the coming struggle. It will undoubtedly injure the chances of the Mukdenites and strengthen the position of the anti-Mukden forces.

The number of defeats already suffered by the army of Chang-Tso-Lin in the struggle with Sun-Chwan-Fen are to a large extent the results of the hostile attitude of the masses of the Chinese people towards the Mukden dictator and the disintegration within the ranks of the Mukdenites.

The conduct of Djan-Tsi-Djua is particularly curious. This cunning and adroit politician correctly estimated the forces of the national movement from the very commencement. Compelled to manceuvre between Feng-Yui-Sian and Chang-Tso-Lin, he was subjected to strong pressure on the mart of the latter at the time of the Shanghai events. Chang left Mukden and came to Tientsin with the evident intention of moving on further to Peking, of ousting Djan and taking his place in the government. Djan hastened to look to the national movement for support, issued a number of energetic motes directed against the imperialist governments and even went so far as to send 250,000 dollars to the strikers of Shanghai and Hong Kong.

These, of course, were only chessboard moves. But this all proved the strength of the movement from which Djan, because of particular circumstances, had to find support in this struggle against the “machinations” of Chang-Tso-Lan.

Finally, the movement of the last months, and in particular the Shanghai strike, increased the contradictions within the camp of the imperialists. The movement, which commenced in Japanese enterprises, was afterwards, as everybody knows, directed against Great Britain and Japan.

America and France found the moment favourable for ousting their competitors from the Chinese market. Japan, with the support of the Chinese merchant elements on the one hand and utilising the Japanophile tendencies of the Rightwing of Kuomintang on the other, endeavoured through its press (in the Chinese language) to stir up a Pan-Asiatic mood, conducted demagogic agitation against British imperialism, against the high-handed Anglo-Saxon races, and in doing so, stimulated the revolutionary movement against its own will.

The attempts of Great Britain to come to terms with Japan and America failed. Great Britain was to a large extent isolated. The Tariff Conference, now sitting in Peking, shows clearly enough how acute the contradictions among the imperialists have become.

VIII.

The main nationalist aims set out at the commencement of the Shanghai strike have not been attained and cannot be attained, by the strike alone. It is only possible to take away from the imperialists the territory they have seized and the “concessions” by means of an armed struggle of the whole of China, as a result of a victorious war. While not rejecting a further struggle for the nationalist aims, the Shanghai Council of Trade Unions, after three months, has brought workers’ demands into the forefront: recognition of the trade unions, increase of wages: reinstatement of all strikers, payment for time on strike, and many other demands. In order to preserve the national front and not to lose the sympathy of the petty bourgeois and become isolated, the workers have also brought forward national demands of a local nature, such as the handing of the so-called “mixed court” over to the Chinese, equality of rights for Chinese living in the foreign quarters and certain other demands.

This complicated and difficult manceuvre, which has demanded great tact and flexibility on the part of the leaders and complete trust of the masses of strikers in their leaders, has met with success. At first the Japanese textile enterprises made partial concessions and after a time a similar agreement was made with the British. All the strikers without exception had to be reinstated. The time lost during the strike had to be paid.

A little time later (the agreement was concluded at the commencement of September) the employers, under some pretext or without any pretexts, began to violate the conditions agreed to. This led to a renewal of the strikes in a number of enterprises extending also to Chinese undertakings. But this did not change the situation. The proletarian front was firm; disintegration did not commence; the proletariat retreated: in complete order, conscious of attained though not complete victory.

The dissolution of the Shanghai Council of Trade Unions by the troops of Chang-Tso-Lin and then the second attack on the trade union movement by the troops of the Chi-li militarist, Sun-Chwan-Fen, who at that time had managed to occupy Shanghai, did not smash the Labour movement. It was already sufficiently strongly organised, sufficiently well connected with the factories and with the working masses. Illegal delegate movements maintain strong contacts and continue to lead the movement under the new conditions. The firmness of the leadership and the solidarity of the masses are adequately proved by the fact that the strike on the British ships, with which no agreement had been reached, continued without slackening until it caused tremendous losses to British shipping and absolutely paralysed the movement of the British ships in the Pacific Ocean.

IX.

As we see, the Labour movement has not yet gained either any big class or national final achievements. The political status of China is still unchanged. The most appalling conditions of the Chinese workers remain as before. Nevertheless, in achieving during the events of this summer the culminating point of their development, both the national and class movements have risen up to heights hitherto unattained and have entered on a new stage.

For the first time the movement has become a real mass Movement, in which not only thousands, but hundreds of thousands and millions are drawn in.

The Labour movement has become the central pivot of the entire national liberation movement in China. The working class has the undisputed leadership and its movement determines the correlation of the forces struggling in China.

More than any other factor, the Labour movement has helped to transform the so-called People’s Army into an instrument of struggle with the Mukdenites and imperialism.

It has denounced before the masses of the people the empty national role of Chang-Tso-Lin, has branded him as an enemy of the people and at the same time weakened his chances in the struggle.

It has increased the contradictions in the camp of the imperialists, where Japan is arming against Great Britain, America is working against both, and France, while not uniting with any of them, is endeavoring to use them all. This sharpening of contradictions among the imperialists is naturally also advantageous to the national and Labour movements, and greatly facilitates their struggle.

As a counter-weight to the traditions of regionalism and federalism it has popularised the idea of unity in China, has compelled the Canton and Peking Governments to go out to meet one another for the formation of a united anti-militarist front.

Finally, however, it has pointed out not only to the advanced workers, but to the main cadres of the Chinese proletariat such as the textile workers, dockers, sailors, etc., the strength of the workers so long as they are organised, and have class solidarity. The gravitation into the trade union and political organisations is perhaps the most valuable achievement of the last period. This last point brings. us to the question of the role of the political parties and the trade unions in the Labour movement in China.

The Chinese proletariat has up to the present to a certain extent “got off easily.” The Labour movement in China up to the present has not known the internal struggles which have been undermining the forces of the working class not only in Europe but also in Japan. The Chinese proletariat was born in stormy years, at the end of the imperialist war and the October revolution. The Communist Party in China was founded at quite an early date and the leadership of the trade union movement in such important branches as transport and mining got into the hands of the Communists from the very first, as there were not any serious competitors in the Labour movement. The entire national and international policy of the U.S.S.R. acted as a tremendous factor from without, stimulating the Chinese movement and created a favourable atmosphere for the development of the Labour movement. Contact with the international Labour movement, with the Comintern and with the R.I.L.U. has become closer and more vital than in any other country of the East. All this denotes unusual precision, clearness and revolutionary pugnacity in the activities of the Chinese workers.

Collaboration of the Chinese Communists with the Kuomintang Left, the only mass Party of the petty bourgeoisie and radical intellectuals, has already constituted a powerful bloc between the proletariat and the urban middle classes which is preparing the way for a further alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. We have already the beginnings of such an alliance in the provinces of Kwantung and Henang.

In view of the weakness of the Chinese bourgeoisie, which up to now has not been distinguished by any formulated political Party, such a Party will in the future be the Right-wing of the Kuomintang, which is more and more departing from the national revolutionary movement into the camp of reaction. There is nothing astonishing in the fact that 2,000,000 industrial workers, firmly led by the Chinese Communist Party and the revolutionary trade unions, have become the mainstay of the entire revolutionary movement, and have acquired leadership. The vanguard of the working class evidently has appreciated the significance of revolutionary leadership. During a few months the membership of the Communist Party has been trebled; the growth of the trade unions has been still more significant. For the first time in the movement, considerable numbers of women have been attracted into the Party and unions.

Despite all these tremendous achievements, we are only at the commencement of the revolutionary struggle in China. Not a few temporary defeats and tests are still awaiting the working class on the path to victory. The events of this summer have shown that the working class of China despite its youth, is not only capable of attacking, but also of manceuvring and of retreating in full fighting order. Therein lies the guarantee that the working class of China will preserve its leadership and fulfil the historical task which confronts it.

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/new_series/v02-n17-1925-new-series-CI-grn-riaz.pdf