For this the centenary year, a speech of obvious importance for the history of the British General Strike. Tomsky speaks as the head of Soviet trade unions and leading Soviet figure on Anglo-Russian Committee of cooperation between British and Russian labor organizations which existed from 1925, through the strike, until its demise in 1927 when diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed.

‘The British Strike and the Tasks of the International Trade Union Movement’ by Mikhail Tomsky from International Press Correspondence Nos. 64 & 65. September 30 and October 7, 1926.

Report at the Enlarged Plenary Session of the Moscow Trade Union Council.

I.

According to all proletarian rules, I ought to have been making a speech in your name today or tomorrow at the British Trades Union Congress in Bournemouth, and the fact that I am not doing so is, as you very well know, due to circumstances beyond my control (laughter). In view of the fact that I am speaking here to a no less honourable audience (laughter, applause), I will take the liberty of saying to them, through the medium of this meeting of the Moscow Trade Union functionaries, some of what I intended to say in person to the British workers at the British Trades Union Congress.

In my opinion, it is impossible today to speak on any single question of the international Labour movement without touching, lightly at any rate, on the history of the British miners’ strike and the general strike in May.

The Nature of the General Strike.

Last May the British mineowners literally drove the British miners into a corner and declared: Either you will agree to worse working conditions and renounce all claim to a wages agreement on a national scale or we shall close the mines. Thus the affair actually began with a lock-out and not with a strike. It is of special importance to remember this at the present moment, as we find that the speeches of the British trade union leaders contain statements which put the matter in quite a different light.

As an answer to this lock-out the English trade unions resolved to support the miners in their fight by the proclamation of a general strike. In forming this resolution they took the view that the employers’ attack on the miners was a signal for an attack on the economic achievements of the whole British working-class. These indisputable facts are, however, turned upside down by the leaders of the General Council. We hear from the lips of the President at Bournemouth that the strike was not a general strike but a “national” strike. The telegram, unfortunately, fails to explain what is the difference between a “national” and a general strike.

In what way is this strike distinguished from a general strike? Perhaps in that not everything, but only the whole of the transport and the most important branches of industry were brought to a standstill? The object of this was to keep those workers who could not help in the miners’ fight at their work, and not to create superfluous ballast by drawing them into the strike. This is why the workers in the most important branches of industry, the whole of the transport workers, the dock workers, the workers in the metal industry, the electrical industry etc. were called upon to join in the strike. We however call that a general strike.

The strike began under unequal conditions. Whereas the English trade unions had talked a great deal about the approaching conflict in May, but had taken no steps to make suitable preparations for this conflict and to ensure the victory of the miners, the other side the mineowners and with them the Conservative Government had, instead of indulging in empty words and loud talk, been making zealous preparations for the fight which was imminent. In the very first days of the strike it became evident that it was not a case of a fight against the mineowners, but against the Conservative Government; for the miners were faced, not by an army of the mineowners, but by the army of the British Empire, fully armed, with steel helmets; for the police were mobilised against the fighting workers, the police who are not in the service of the mineowners but in the service of His Majesty’s Conservative Government; the Courts, which worked by summary procedure during the strike, relentlessly sending the strikers to prison, were not the courts of the mineowners, but the Courts of His Majesty’s Conservative Government. Neither were the military armoured-cars which paraded the streets of London during the strike, the property of the mineowners; they were mobilised by the Conservative Government which is in the majority in the Parliament which works on the basis of the so-called English democracy. The police batons which rained down on the heads of the strikers in the streets are also the property of His Majesty’s Government.

Nevertheless the leaders of the British trade unions not only maintained at that time but continue to maintain that it was an economic strike.

Under the leadership of the General Council, the workers of the most important branches of industry, the main forces of the English working class rushed in serried ranks to the assistance of the miners. The capitalist class which is organised according to all the rules of “the democracy” and “the Constitution” on the other hand, came to the support of the mineowners. The bourgeoisie had control of the whole bourgeois Press, to counterbalance which the workers had, apart from two or three weekly journals, only the small “Daily Herald”, the organ of the Labour Party, which is rather vacillating in its ideology and which, as a matter of fact, did not play a quite straight game during the strike. It is, of course, a matter of common knowledge that the Press plays a most important part in the period of preparation for a fight.

As the time for the fight approached, it became evident that the English trade unions were neither technically nor morally prepared for the strike, whereas the mineowners who had the Government in their hands, thus had control of a well-organised apparatus for strike-breaking, of the whole police, the army, the legislature and of a Constitution altered to suit the occasion. Should we therefore describe the fight as economic or political?

To whom could a general strike submit demands? To the mineowners? An economic strike consists in the workers, who are united in some organisation or other, saying to the employers or to a group of employers: Either you satisfy this or that demand or we shall down tools. That is an economic strike. A strike of this nature is at present being carried on in our country by the workers in the concession-holding concerns of the “Indo-European Telegraph Company”. The trade union says: We will work under such and such conditions; other conditions are offered them and therefore the strike is on. When however the miners are fighting against the mineowners and are helped by the metal workers, the railwaymen, the workers in the electrical power works, the dock workers etc., and the whole life of the country is consequently paralysed for no government can govern nowadays unless it has control of the means of transport–only those who know nothing of the Labour movement, nothing of the class war, can call such a strike an economic strike.

Leaders of a Fight, Who Do Not Want to Fight, Who Do Not Desire Victory.

During the strike we saw on the one side a capitalist class which thoroughly understood the significance of events, was technically prepared for the fight and hid at its disposal an organisation which unfolded as if by magic; it had control of the Press, an automobile basis of its own, a distribution of products of its own etc., etc. On the other side were the trade unions who were not prepared either morally or technically, under the guidance of muddle-headed leaders. These “leaders” doddered the whole time about the strike being a “purely economic” strike and about their having no intention of violating the foundations of the Constitution, without perceiving that, the moment the fight began, the capitalist Government had, for the time being, thrown this same Constitution into the waste-paper basket.

The liberty of the subject is always suspended when the State is in danger every strike, be it understood, is a threat to the State from the point of view of the capitalists. This is the idea of the bourgeois constitution. When the right of assembly is granted, there is always a clause to the effect that meetings in barracks, in railway workshops etc. are prohibited, the right to interpret, to apply or not to apply the constitution being in the hands of the capitalist class. This is the meaning of the bourgeois democracy and the bourgeois constitution.

What, on the other hand, was the chief concern of the leaders of the British trade unions during the strike? Their chief concern was to assure the workers and the bourgeoisie that they did not wish to violate the Constitution, that they had no evil intentions, Heaven forefend, against Parliament, that they did not for a moment wish to introduce politics into the fight. They maintained that the fight was exclusively a “national”, “industrial” strike, and they carried their “loyalty” so far that when the Russian workers offered them help, they declined that help so as not to make a bad impression on bourgeois public opinion. The bourgeois papers, they said, have always written a great deal about “Russian gold” and, if we now suddenly accept this help, there will again be a great outcry made about the “cursed Russian gold”.

This fact indicates that the leaders of this strike limited it from the beginning within the bounds of national proletarian sources of help: that in doing so they cut themselves off from international proletarian support and did not wish to link their fight with the fight and with the solidarity of the workers of all countries. In this way they as good as said to their opponents: We have so much and no more, and when we come to the end of it we shall capitulate.

Where did Treachery Begin?

It was a matter of great concern to the trade union leaders as to how bourgeois public opinion would interpret the acceptance of help from abroad. Should a bad interpretation be put upon it, then they would refrain from accepting financial sup port for the whole duration of the strike. This is analogous to an army refusing to accept supplies of munitions and provisions during the fight. Was it ever to be imagined that bourgeois public opinion would be in favour of support for a strike? How could anyone count on winning over bourgeois public opinion’ to the side of the workers in face of an experienced, rich, class-conscious bourgeoisie such as is the English, with its colossal, venal yellow bourgeois Press apparatus? Public opinion, the attitude of mind of a hostile class must be reckoned with in so far as it makes it possible to take one’s bearings in the fight. If however we steer our course according to public opinion, it amounts to nothing more nor less than the betrayal of the interests of our own class.

We saw how the whole bourgeois class with the whole apparatus of power of the bourgeois State, with all the solidarity and unanimity of which it is capable, gathered round the mineowners. We saw also that the miners, at the onset of the fight, seemed to receive the support of the General Council and of the other unions. We saw, it is true, how the battlefront of the workers deployed timidly and hesitatingly indeed how the concerns of vital importance, the power stations, railways etc. were brought to a standstill. We saw further how this general strike was led without enthusiasm and how shamefully it was ended at a time when there was in reality no sign that the British working class was likely to suffer defeat. A large number of responsible comrades maintain that the statement, according to which the battle-front was demoralised on the eighth day of the strike by deserters and strike-breakers is a wicked calumny on the millions of British workers who in this fight, showed unexampled courage, solidarity and enthusiasm.

Why was the general strike stopped? This is the first question to which the leaders of the strike will have to give all answer. After the mineowners had proclaimed the lock-out of the miners, the general strike was begun; it was shamefully called off on the ninth day. Did the ninth day then bring any change for the better in this conflict? No! Sir Herbert Samuel promised Mr. Pugh something very important, then declared that he had not done so or that if he had, he had had no authority to do it, and on the basis of this parleying the greatest strike in the world came to an inglorious end. Where can we find an objective factor which would have justified the supposition that the general strike or, as they chose to call it, the “national” strike was condemned to failure or that the cause of the miners had been advanced by a hair’s breadth? Why did they stop the strike? Had the position of the miners improved after the first nine days of the strike? No, the position has not even improved now after four and a half months of heroic fighting. Why was the general strike nevertheless called off, why was the duty of supporting the miners not carried out to the end?

Why are the miners now alone in their fight, and how can they be helped? This is the second vital question which the whole British working class and its Congress should deal with in the first place. Yes indeed! the miners, left to their fate in this shameful way, have for more than four months, been carrying on their heroic fight under conditions of terrible distress and privations.

We ought not mechanically to compare the English worker with our Russian worker. His habitual standard of comfort and culture is much higher than that of our worker. Up to the present time, the English worker has been the best paid worker. In view of this standard of living, it means enduring enormous suffering to remain on strike for four months with an average weekly allowance of 18 pence.

Before the outbreak of the conflict in the coal industry, the leaders of the British trade unions declared that they were quite aware that the attack on the miners was a prelude to an attack on the whole working-class of England, an offensive against all the economic achievements of the English working-class, that the reduction of the standard of living of the miners was the beginning of a struggle for the reduction of the standard of living of all English workers.

We prophesied this and when, on your instructions, I spoke at the Hull Congress, I told the English workers that the Dawes plan, it is true, hit the German worker in the first place, but that after a time it would hit the English worker too, since it was a stick with two ends. The reduction of the standard of living of the German worker will be followed by an attack on the standard of living of the English worker. At that time my words were regarded as political agitation, but they have since been completely confirmed by the course of events. The attack on the miners is an attack on the whole English working class. The miners are only the first on whom the blow has fallen; they are however in reality carrying on a fight against the reduction of the standard of living of the whole English working-class.

Do the leaders of the British trade unions now grasp this fact or do they not? If they do grasp it, how can they, from the point of view of the interests of the working class, from the point of view of the immediate tasks of the class war, let the miners fight alone, suffer strike-breaking coal to be imported, allow this coal to be transported by British railways and unloaded in British ports?

The General Council states, as it did at the Berlin session of the Anglo-Russian Committee, that it could not call upon the workers to join in the fight, to give more active support immediately as, in consequence of the strike, in consequence of the want of coal, in consequence of the crisis which was developing, 50% of the English workers were either entirely out of work or on short time. This argument is only to the discredit of the leaders of the British trade unions. They can of course say to the broad masses of workers in a demagogic way: “See, the miners are continuing to strike, they will not submit to the General Council, with the result that English industry has no fuel, that the works are brought to a standstill and that the workers in other branches of industry are thus placed in a difficult situation. The miners, in pursuing their own economic interests, are placing hundreds of thousands of English workers in a precarious situation.” Such speeches can be heard in England today. There is however not a shred of truth in them. They are an impudent misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs, as the situation is, in reality, exactly the reverse.

If there is to be a fight, let it be a relentless fight.

British trade unionism was faced by the problem that it must either parry the first attack of capital on the miners in the way demanded by circumstances, and declare war right along the whole line, or it must, without fighting, shamefully accept worse conditions for the workers and relinquish all that they had achieved hitherto. “If there is to be a fight, let it be a relentless fight” this is what the workers said in their resolution at Hull; and this is, indeed, a proletarian point of view. A fight without being afraid of coming up against the Constitution, Parliament etc.! Nay, indeed, these, perhaps, are the very institutions at which it would have been necessary to strike the first blow. (Applause.)

In connection with the miners’ struggle, it would have been the duty of the General Council to accept the class battle along the whole front, to repulse the first general frontal attack of capital and to lead the British working class to victory, possibly at the cost of great suffering and great privations. This is what was demanded by the interests of the whole of the British working class. Do they imagine that we carried through the October Revolution without sufferings, privation and sacrifice? Have the most important economic achievements of the workers been accomplished anywhere without suffering, without fighting, without privation? Even though the general strike had lasted for weeks, the question of the relation of forces between Labour and capital would undoubtedly have been solved in favour of the workers, and that would have saved the English workers from future suffering and privation.

One of the arguments of the British trade union leaders with which they tried to justify the calling off of the general strike, was that they wished to prevent hundreds of thousands of workers being exposed to suffering and privation. But has this wish been fulfilled? No, for the suffering and privation are only now beginning, and the British working class, in a weakened position, will have to face a succession of attacks on the part of capital if the miners’ struggle ends with a defeat.

The Conservatives have given the English workers a splendid lesson on the nature of the “Constitution” and the nature of “Democracy”. At the height of the battle between the mineowners and the miners, which was waged round the question of the hours of work, collective agreements and reduction of wages, the government passed an act putting an end to the seven hours’ shift. That is the nature of the “Constitution”. Then the trade union leaders come along and say: “We do not wish for a political fight, we are opposed to political fights, the present strike is merely an economic conflict.”

The class struggle is a political struggle and also at the same time an economic struggle. We told the English trade union leaders in our report at the Anglo-Russian Committee at that time they found no fault with our point of view only a fool would imagine that there could be an economic attack of capital unaccompanied by a political offensive, would imagine that the ruling class would make an economic attack without supporting it politically. Such an event is impossible. We know from our own experience that when we made an economic attack on the bourgeoisie, took the factories from them and deprived the landowners of the land, we at the same time sent out Red Army troops, defeated those who were recalcitrant and issued stern decrees. For had we attempted to observe political passivity, we should not have succeeded in taking from them either the land or the factories. Was this an economic or a political fight? Let anybody who will imagine matters as though it had been merely an economic fight, as though we had taken away the factories and the land without an interference of politics!

The fight which is being carried on by the miners, bravely, in isolation, deserted, by all other groups of the English working class, is a fight which will decide the question as to who will be crushed. Will capital crush the miners, will it force first of all the most intrepid and resolute fighters, and after them the whole British labour movement on to their knees and dictate always and everywhere to the workers at their pleasure, or will the miners, supported by the working class, repulse the offensive all along the line?

A final victorious fight against capital and against its offensive is, of course, impossible in England under the rule of the Conservative government. It is absolutely impossible under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to put once and for all a victorious end to the attack of capital on the achievements of the workers. The first problem which faces the English workers as we Russians see the question, is the problem of power, the question of the replacement of the bourgeois government by such a labour government as would really guarantee the nationalisation of the mines, and would not carry on a policy of empty words as did MacDonald when he was in power and as the Trades Union Congress is doing now in the person of the trade union leaders. MacDonald, when in office, said that he had no objections on principle to the nationalisation of the mines, but that the decision of this question must be postponed for a year or two, i.e. until he would no longer be in the government. The question of the miners in its present form, which raises before the eyes of the English working class the question of power in a concrete form, should be the main question, the centre of interest at the Trades Union Congress.

The International Significance of the Fight of the English Miners.

“Cain, where is thy brother Abel? General Council, what hast thou so far done for the support of the miners, why are they isolated and in what way dost thou propose to the English workers to help them?” This is what the Congress should ask the leaders of the General Council. We look in vain however for a single one of these questions on the agenda of the Congress. The questions on the agenda concern the industrial unions, the extension of the powers of the General Council, the question of support for the unemployed and so on. There are among them questions which were always important and always will be important which were important two years ago and will still be important in five years, which are of equal importance in England, in Germany, and in our own country. These questions might just as well be discussed at a Trade Union Conference in the Argentine. But we look in vain down the agenda of this Congress for a report on the miners’ strike and on the question as to how the miners should be supported who are fighting on an enormous front and in the interests of the whole working class, in the interests not only of the English working class but of that of the whole world.

Anyone who represents the English strike as a purely national question, which has no connection with the whole international fight of the working class and with the present tendencies of capital as a whole, merely shows that he understands nothing and sees nothing of what is going on outside England, or, to put it more correctly, outside his own trade union office. In such circumstances all the talk of our international tasks and international activities is not worth a farthing. Have we not, from the very first day of our meeting with the representatives of the British Trade Unions, emphasised over and over again that the offensive of capital is an international phenomenon, arising out of the whole economic situation of the present post-war period, out of the new phase of development of the new capitalism? Is it not clear to every thinking person that the offensive of capital against the working class and against its achievements is nothing more nor less than an attempt to solve the question: at whose costs shall the productive forces destroyed by the war be restored, at the cost of the bourgeoisie or at the cost of the workers? The bourgeoisie wants to place the whole burden of the cost of this reconstruction on the workers’ shoulders. This is the whole point of the bourgeois attitude to the question of nationalisation, of the intensification of work, of the cheapening of production by lengthening the hours of work, reducing wages and “adapting wages to the national index”. Wherever we look we see the same phenomena: in Germany, in France and in England One country more pronounced, in another in a slightly veiled form. In its first stages this phenomenon seemed scarcely to touch England. Today, however, it finds expression precisely in the country of classic capitalism England, in the most pronounced and classically consistent form. Anyone who does not realise that this is an international movement, that when the working class in any country is fighting in opposition to the enemy class this fight must be supported by the whole International Labour Movement, that such an attack of capital can only be repulsed with the help of millions and tens of millions of workers in other countries–anyone who does not understand this is either out of his senses and is afraid to look. Truth straight in the face or, out of cowardice, is clinging to the contrails of the bourgeoisie. Let each choose the explanation which suits him best.

The question of the standard of living of the English workers is closely connected with the low standard of living the German working class.

In the world market English capitalists compete with German and American coal, and the question of their capability of competing forces them to exert pressure on the standard of living of their workers, because German coal is cheaper in consequence of the low wages and longer hours of work of the German workers. Is this not an international question? Just because this question is of a pronouncedly international character, just because the solution of this question is of importance for the whole International Labour Movement, just because the fight against the offensive of capital depends upon it, because an important question of the fight between Labour and capital, of the fight against the offensive of capital is being decided on this sector of the proletarian front, just for this reason we, the trade unions of the Soviet Union, could not ignore the question of the English strike we had to “interfere” in this fight.

In What Did Our Famous “Interference” in English Affairs Consist?

I now come to the question of the way in which British trade unionism characterises our “interference in English affairs”. They are extremely indignant. This indignation is loudly echoed in the British bourgeois Press which is besides itself with astonishment that the Russians presume to interfere in English affairs. This catch-word has been taken up by the whole Reformist Press of Western Europe. I will describe in a few words wherein this cursed “interference” in English affairs consists.

We could not, of course, regard the English general strike as a purely “national” phenomenon, as a “national” strike. We realised the deep international significance of the fight which has developed in England and regarded it as our duty to “interfere” in English affairs. This “interference” found expression mainly in that, immediately after the outbreak of the strike, we called upon our more than 8000 transport workers who were engaged in loading naphta for England to join in a solidarity strike, to which they readily assented. They kept up the strike not only during the general strike but even after the general strike had been called off, when the English seamen and railwaymen were already transporting coal.

This was the first fact of our “interference” in the fight of the English workers against the English capitalists. The second fact of the interference was that we called upon all our trade union members to dedicate a quarter of their daily wages to the support of the striking miners; and from these sums we sent a few million roubles for the support of the strike. The leaders of the General Council regarded this as an “interference” in their internal affairs and declined the support. The strike suffered a shameful defeat there is no other word to describe it.

How did the strike begin? It began with an appeal from the General Council to the workers: “At such and such an hour lay down your tools!” The workers laid down their tools and the strike began. The breaking off of the strike followed on another appeal: “At such and such an hour resume work!” The workers took up their tools and asked: “Under what conditions?” The answer was: “That is your own affair.” The industrialists immediately began to dictate conditions to the workers, under which they were prepared to reinstate them. Can this be called a proper ending to the strike? It can only be called desertion on the part of the leaders, cowardice, abandoning the workers, who had been called upon to fight, to their fate, and treacherous isolation of the miners in their fight.

Let any moderately honest Reformist trade unionist answer the question: What is the duty of a strike leader? The duty of every strike leader is to carry on to the end a strike which has been begun and to conclude it in an organised manner. If you lead the workers into a strike, you must be prepared to say under what conditions the workers are to resume work. The leaders of the General Council, however, led the British workers into the fight and then said to them: “Now resume work, the conditions under which you do so are your own affair. We have led you hitherto, you may now do as you like.” Could we pass over such facts in silence? Could we refrain from telling all Russian and English workers and all workers in general what we think about it? We could not refrain from doing so, and this was a further act of “interference” on our part.

In our declaration, which was passed by the plenum of the A.U.C.T.U., we gave a night estimate of the whole strike and of the attitude of the leaders during the strike. Could we have proceeded in any other way? No, that would have been impossible. When we saw that a question of the greatest international significance was being decided, when it became clear to us that in the fight which was proceeding between labour and capital, the interests of the workers were being scandalously betrayed, that the leaders were not doing their duty, not fulfilling the tasks they had undertaken, we considered ourselves in honour bound, to say openly what we thought about it.

What is Our Conception of a Fraternal Alliance?

We hear from the General Council protests such as the following: “How is it possible that you, who are united with us in a fraternal alliance, who are working with us at the Anglo-Russian Committee, suddenly begin to insult us in the most abusive and unjustifiable terms?”

In our opinion it is not the terms which are used between labour organisations which are of importance, but their spirit. We do not consider that our connection with the English workers should consist in Purcell shaking hands with Tomsky or in their being photographed together. Is the fraternal alliance between the workers of the Soviet Union and of England, which is personified in the Anglo-Russian Committee, an alliance of leaders? A block between Purcell and Tomsky would not be worth a farthing. The essence of the question lies in the brotherly proletarian alliance between the English and Russian workers. We, in the innocence of our souls, imagine that a brotherly alliance means that if anyone hits you, I help you, and the reverse.

In our opinion a fraternal alliance is really an alliance of brothers; if it comes to fighting, we ought to fight together. If one is attacked, the other should help him. If you fight badly, we shall say: You are fighting badly, pull yourself together. We have a right to say this, as we intend to share your victory or your defeat. That is a fraternal alliance. It is just because this is our conception of fraternal alliance that we considered and still consider it our duty and believe that we have the right to help the English workers in their fight. At the same time, however, we consider that we are entitled to criticise the mistakes of their leaders, whilst giving them every right to criticise us without choosing their terms.

At the end of this year our 7th Trade Union Congress takes place, and we have invited representatives of the British: trade union movement to attend it. We give them full liberty to criticise us. Criticise as much as you like, singly or in chorus, in whatever terms you choose (applause). We fear no criticism, as we report on every step we take at conferences, at large meetings of workers, answering for every step taken to the mass of workers called together by ourselves. We are prepared in advance to put any question they wish on the agenda of our Congress. If they propose a different agenda from that we have prepared, we will accept their proposals. We do not let anything pass unnoticed, but in their country, for some reason or other, two such “insignificant questions” as the question of the general strike, and that of the support of the miners are left out of the agenda.

They regarded our declaration, which was indeed expressed in strong terms and in which the activity of the leaders of the general strike was criticised, as an interference in their internal affairs. This is a mistake for, from this point of view it would follow that a fraternal alliance means that if one of the leaders makes a mistake, if one of the leaders betrays the interests of the workers, the other must hold his tongue out of consideration for the fraternal alliance. This is evidently their idea of a brotherly alliance. We have no use for such an alliance, we will not accept an alliance of this kind.”

We cannot renounce the right to exercise criticism, we cannot renounce the right to tell the workers the truth and we never shall renounce it. I will not now speak of the situation of the miners; I have spoken of it many times already; every proletarian thoroughly understands the difficulties of the miners’ position. I will now pass on to a description of the relations between ourselves and the General Council since the general strike was called off.

II.

Our Proposals for the Support of the Miners.

Our representatives met the representatives of the General Council at the Paris Conference of the Anglo-Russian Committee and demanded that the support of the miners should be placed on the agenda as the first and most important point. The English demanded that our representatives should decline to join in the declaration which had been passed by the A.U.C.T.U., as they considered it an insult to the General Council. The representatives of the British General Council rejected our proposal. Our representatives on the other hand declined and they were right in doing so to discuss the declaration of the A.U.C.T.U.

In this, the representatives of the General Council exhibited a strange logic. If we accept a declaration which condemns their concrete mistakes, they regard it as interfering in their internal affairs, but when they demand that a resolution framed by the supreme body of our trade union movement be revoked, it is no interference in our affairs. In our opinion however, just this is an interference in our affairs, an attempt to force their conditions on us. We were right in rejecting this proposal, for we cannot and will not renounce our right to criticism.

The consequence of this was that the Conference of the Anglo-Russian Committee dispersed without having passed any resolutions. Shortly afterwards a second conference took place in Berlin at which our representatives again insisted on the question of the support of the miners being made the first point on the agenda. The English disputed for a day and a half the necessary of bringing up this question, until our representatives induced them to accept our proposal. When the question of the support of the miners was finally put on the agenda and our representative made a number of in our opinion very practical proposals, they replied very diplomatically that in the first place these proposals were impracticable, and in the second place that all these proposals had already been discussed and to a large extent carried through. Is there any logic in this? I cannot find it. Finally, the English rejected the proposals of our delegation without discussing them point by point.

As the Committee has no executive, but only advisory rights, and as in the Committee the separate questions are not decided by a majority but by mutual understanding, our proposals were not realised. I ask: did the General Council and its representatives act rightly when they rejected our proposals at the Conference of the Anglo-Russian Committee? In my opinion, the Congress at Bournemouth should at least have said a few words on the subject; the question however is not on the agenda of the Congress, although these “unpractical” suggestions deal with so important a question as, for instance, calling upon all workers to contribute 1% of their wages to help the mines for the whole duration of the strike. Had this proposal been carried through, we might have awaited the issue of the fight with calm confidence; or, although some vacillation is seen in the ranks of the miners in consequence of their extreme exhaustion, the situation of the mineowners and of the Government is by no means enviable. The month of September is the most important month in the coal-market; in this month stores of coal are laid in for the whole winter. It is not difficult to understand what this means; furthermore every day of such a strike costs many millions. And, if the English workers, could in such circumstances rely on really firm international support would they find themselves in the position in which they now are? las our support on the other hand no influence on the situation of the miners? Is, in the given circumstances. Ou proposal for a one per cent levy on the wages of all workers for the duration of the strike a bad, impracticable suggestion? After our proposal had been rejected, we made the same suggestion to the workers of the Soviet Union and received telegrams from all parts of our country to the effect that the worker were prepared to contribute 1% of their wages to the support of the fighting miners for the duration of the strike. There will of course be individual voices of opposition, possibly a few backward members of our trade unions, a few employees who lack class-consciousness, or persons who have taken refuge with us from the old apparatus of the State while preserving their old ideology. We have not the slightest doubt however that our trade unions and our trade union members as a whole will give a positive answer to this question; they will say that this is the most practical and the only right attitude (applause).

Voices will perhaps be raised maintaining, according to the old stock phrase, that what is good for Russia is not suitable for the English. Why should the method of brotherly help which the workers of the Soviet Union practise be the right thing in Russia and not in England or Germany? Why? Is it because the workers in England earn better wages or are better educated than ours? Why do these methods not apply over there? I believe it is because they have corrupt leaders (applause) whose actions are not guided by the will to unite the workers and to develop class solidarity, but whose policy is directed towards dividing the workers according to nations, unions, occupations etc. and because they all cast sheep’s eyes at the employers. This is why our methods do not suit them.

Another way in which the Russian workers “interfered” with the trade unions, was a proposal on the carrying through of which the fate of the strike largely depends. We proposed to discuss the question of an embargo, of preventing the loading and transport of strike-breaking coal.

The Attitude of the General Council to the Miners’ Struggle.

The miners are locked out, and what is the attitude of the General Council? Is it for or against the miners fight? We have received no clear answer to this question. I have carefully studied the speech of the chairman of the congress. He says:

“M, on the principle stated, it is right that the whole Movement may be required to rally to the defence of any part, if a common effort, a common sacrifice is required (this is absolutely true; in our opinion, a repetition of the action which failed the first time is now necessary), it must also be accepted as equally fundamental that the interest of no part of the Movement is superior to the interest of the whole.”

According to our view this sentence is true in an absolute sense. The point however is that the miners are now defending the interests of the movement as a whole, that the interests of the whole movement are being decided on the miners’ front. This is why the movement as a whole must hasten to the help of this section. The trend of Pugh’s formula on the other hand seems to be that the miners should sacrifice themselves in the interests of the other workers, that the interests of the British workers would benefit if the miners were to yield. Were the miners to yield up their positions and, according to all the rules of democracy and of the Constitution, to accept the eight hours’ day instead of the seven hours’ day, were they to renounce the claim to a national wages agreement and to accept district agreements (i.e. finally to disintegrate their federation), were they to accept a reduction of wages, this apparently would serve the interests of the whole labour movement of England. This sophism is dished up without any connection with the chief tasks of the whole labour movement in Britain, and the result is an extremely doubtful diplomatic turn of speech: “on the one hand on the other hand”. Plainly stated however, the question is: Are you in favour of the miners or not? If you are for the miners, how have you supported them? Are the interests of the British labour movement being decided on this section of the front or are they not? I maintain that they are, and no one dare dispute it.

What is the Significance of the Refusal of Permits of Entry to the Representatives of the Soviet Trade Unions?

It is said that the refusal of permits of entry to Tomsky and Melnitschanky is a trifle, a minor question. On the one hand it is indeed a trifle, for we have often been refused a permit of entry. What is its significance however in connection with the fact that the Americans and the Amsterdamites have at the same time been allowed to enter the country? It means that the control of the international policy of the British trade unions is exclusively in the hands of His Majesty’s Conservative Government. How else can we interpret the fact that the General Council is not allowed to send its delegates to such countries as it considers desirable and is not allowed to invite those persons whom it wishes to invite but only such as are approved of by the Government?

They wish to dispose of this fact by a phrase such as that used by Clynes and others, saying: “That is not liberal procedure, it is dishonest policy on the part of the Minister for Home Affairs.” They look for honesty in the class politics of the bourgeoisie.

The refusal of the permits of entry is a new blow aimed by the Government at the Trades Union Congress. What is the answer of the General Council? “We protest! Protesting is easy enough; but what is the value of a passive protest? It is a scrap of paper. You are indignant; but what have you demanded from the Government? What have you done to free yourselves from this control, to force the Government to withdraw the prohibition of entry? This is the actual question, and it is a question which cannot be avoided. We can nevertheless understand this difference of attitude towards the representatives of the American and to those of the Soviet trade unions.

The Fight between two Tendencies in the Labour Movement.

In the international labour movement a struggle between two tendencies, two courses, can be clearly observed: the tendency of the American trade union movement and the tendency of the trade union movement in the Soviet Union. The line of the American trade union movement is that of ultra-Reformism, of Reformism, of opportunism such as has not hitherto been practised in Europe and is only now reaching us from America.

The second line is the line of our revolutionary class movement. These two lines are now confronting one another in Western Europe and the workers of Western Europe must chose: Are they for the American methods of fighting and working or for those of the Soviet Union?

The American method is based on the theory that the working class can be emancipated by means of economic co-operation with the capitalist class, especially by means of the realisation of Socialism, through Labour Banks which are to be established with the money of the trade unions, with the savings of the workers.

They say that the working class will arrive at Socialism by means of the influence of these Labour Banks on industry. For the time being however, the trade union leaders are elected as directors and members of the supervising boards of these banks with corresponding salaries, they buy shares and speculate on the Stock Exchange. In practice the result is that the bank is not influenced by the trade unions but the trade unions by the bank. Commissions for the rationalisation of production are set up similar to our conferences on production. They are composed of equal numbers of representatives of the workers and of the administration; they meet and discuss how the productivity of labour of the concern in question can be increased in the interest of its capability of competing with other undertakings. What an idyll! just as with us but the other way round. According to our method the undertaking must first be taken out of the hands of the capitalists and only then can conferences take place. They however have outrun us; first conferences on production and then, with the help of the banks, in about 300 years, the purchase of the concerns. The American trade unions are often found to be taking orders for their employers. We know of examples of this. In the opinion of the English bourgeoisie this is a good trade union movement. It is actually the fact that if the employer has no money, he gets money from the Labour Bank; the trade union helps the employer to increase the competitive power of the concern, and if he lacks orders, it helps him to get orders. The Russians work on somewhat different lines; they say that the trade union movement is a class movement, that the trade union movement is not separated from the political movement by a Chinese wall, that at a certain stage of the movement, politics and economics fuse.

They go even further; they say that the task of the trade union movement and of the working class as a whole is to wrest the means of oppression, the whole machinery of State from the hands of the capitalist class and to take the factories and the land from the banks.

These are the two tendencies which confront one another in the international labour movement. It is not a matter of indifference to the capitalists which of these two tendencies carries on the victory in the international labour movement. The refusal of the permits of entry is actually equivalent to a support of the Reformist movement on the part of the bourgeois Government of England. The English working class should understand this.

The Embargo the Last Battle.

Since all the problems of the struggle between the working class and the capitalists are being decided on the front of the miners’ fight, the chief question is that of the support of the miners. The first step in this support should be to protect the miners against the import and transport of strike-breaking coal. We raised this question in our proposals to the Anglo-Russian Committee, but received the answer that it was impossible as 50% of the English workers are in a very serious situation owing to the miners’ struggle. We however are of the opinion that they will be in a still more serious situation if the miners suffer a defeat. Do you believe that after a defeat of the miners after the capitalists have got in a blow at the whole British labour movement by prolonging the hours of work, they will care a rap for the working class, for the trade unions? After such a defeat, will any single group of the capitalists stand in awe of the trade unions? Of course not. It is nonsense to deny this. A defeat of the miners would inevitably lead to a loss of political and economic weight on the part of the trade unions.

The labour movement of Great Britain is faced by a clear and urgent question: Are they to take up the last fight or not? The decisive moment of the fight has come, and the British trade unions must now decide whether they will carry on the fight to the last positions.

If the leaders wish to correct their mistakes, which they probably acknowledge to a certain extent, it is their duty to summon the working class to this last fight. However difficult this may be, the last battle must be fought in serried ranks, by the proclamation of an embargo. This might be an actual and decisive form of help to the miners on strike. Is the Congress capable of this? We shall see.

What is the Substance of Mr. Pugh’s Speech?

The chairman’s speech at the Congress was a programmatical speech which gave the tone to the whole congress. Mr. Pugh first of all stated, as we have said, that the strike was not a general strike, but a “national” strike. He further said that the question must be dealt with quite calmly, that the workers should remember the lesson which the Conservative Government bad given them. He then stated that this lesson should be “taken to heart” at the next parliamentary election. These words are criminal. The only lesson which the English workers should learn is that they will never achieve much as long as the power is in the hands of the capitalists, as long as the bourgeois democracy with its parliamentarism, with its constitution, created to deceive the workers, with its “free”, venal Press, exists. Every form of parliamentarism, every constitution is an instrument for betraying and suppressing the workers, is an instrument for ensuring the rule and the dictatorship of the capitalist class. This is the lesson which, in our opinion, the English workers should deduce from the events.

There are, it is true, among the English trade union functionaries, many persons who think as follows: Yes, of course, the Russians have their own methods; they live on the border between Europe and Asia. They have methods of their own; we, however, must lead the workers to victory through parliamentary democracy. There are people who actually believe that with the present bourgeois election apparatus, with the prevailing System of corruption at elections, at which the electors are dragged to the poll in motors, at which votes are paid for, at with the electors are treated etc.–people who believe that some fine day the workers will carry off the victory at the elections and will have a majority in Parliament. They would then decide by simple voting that all banks, factories and works and all houses should become common property and that private ownership of the means of production should come to an end. The capitalists will then propose amendments which will be rejected. Alter the law has been passed, the capitalists will leave the factories and Socialism will be complete. In practice however we see how well the bourgeoisie knows how to fight during a strike. We have seen how much energy the petted sons of the bourgeoisie can display and we know from the experience of the Russian revolution that the bourgeoisie do not yield up their stolen booty with such idyllic serenity; we have seen in our country during the revolution that not bulletins but machine-guns had to be put in action. Even when we had taken away the means of production, the bourgeoisie tried more than once to win them back, and mobilised half the world against us with this object in view. Can then anyone imagine that bulletins will accomplish anything? If any representative of the English trade unions likes to ask any worker, male or female of Moscow or Ivanovo-Vossnessensk etc. how the factories can be taken from the capitalists, he will receive the answer that it can certainly not be done through parliamentarism, by means of voting.

The chairman then continued his pitiful doddering as whether any attempt was made during the strike to paralyse the life of the country. He said that no such attempt had been made, that it was purely a “national” strike.

They bring the railways and motor traffic and the electric power works to a standstill, saying to the Conservatives at the same time: “Pray, do not imagine that we wish to paralyse the life of the country; all this just happens. And what you Conservatives do just happens too. It is not a political but all economic fight.”

Is this tone worthy of a leader of the labour movement? Can such leaders lead the working class to victory? No, the English worker must draw the conclusion that they are incapable of it. “Follow our traditions”, said the chairman of the Congress. explaining that the first congress 58 years ago “in an equally difficult position preserved the greatest calm and commonsense.” This means that in order to preserve the traditions you must act as calmly and sensibly as they did 58 years ago. This means: Forget the imperialist war, forget that capital is attacking you and is trying to shift the burden of the costs of the criminal, predatory war on to your shoulders, forget that there has been a general strike during which the police attacked the workers with truncheons, forget that the miners are starving, that the children of the miners, suffering from under-nourishment in consequence of the four and a half months’ strike, are on the brink of the grave, forget all of this and concern yourselves “calmly and sensibly” with the petty questions on the agenda, as was done 58 years ago.

Can such leaders lead the workers to victory? No, they are incapable of it.

They are afraid that the British worker is beginning to understand where his class interests lie, that he will begin to take an interest in the bourgeois offensive. This is no joke. The British worker is really beginning to understand sufficiently clearly perhaps that, as long as power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie, as long as there is a government of mineowners, shipowners, landowners and bankers, there will also be war, oppression of the working class and endeavours to reduce their standard of living. We see today how the British capitalists are trying to bring down the standard of living of the English worker to the level of the standard of living of the German worker; and, if the leaders of the labour movement of Western Europe continue to behave as they are doing a present, we shall soon see the capitalists beginning to reduce the standard of living of the German and French workers to that of the least organised and most exploited Chinese and Indian workers. That is the ideal of capital.

The English bourgeoisie very well understands how guard its own interests. On the occasion of a conflict of the English navy in American waters, when the question was raised as to whether the English were in the right, the famous Pitt, if my memory serves me, said “Right or wrong, my country.” And now, when it is a question of whether the miner are right or wrong, we must say: They belong to our class and that is all that matters. Wherever workers are fighting. It is the duty of the leaders to place themselves at the head of the fight and to defend the class interests of the workers with mig [sic] and man. This is what the General Council ought to do; instead of which it joins with the clergy as a mediator, and a mediator in what kind of affair? In а fight between miners and mineowners, at 3 time when the miners are right in every respect; for they are carrying on a fight for the whole English working class.

We are in favour of a fraternal alliance with the English workers. We are in favour of preserving the Anglo-Russian Committee and of making it more active. We will not attempt to conceal the fact that there are in our circles individual comrades who have said that, since the leaders of the General Council have betrayed the English strike which is a true statement–we ought to break up the Anglo-Russian Committee, as we ought no longer to sit in the same organisation with the leaders of the General Council. Our alliance with the English workers should not, however, depend on the personality or the conduct of the leaders of the General Council.

No, it is no alliance of the leaders, but an alliance of the workers of the Soviet Union with the workers of Great Britain. The workers of the Soviet Union have proved this by their relief work for the English workers, and the English workers, more especially the English miners, have also given expression to their fraternal solidarity by sending out the fraternal delegation which is present in the hall. (Tempestuous applause.)

The workers of the Soviet Union and their trade unions are in favour of a close fraternal alliance with the British workers, in favour of maintaining the Anglo-Russian Committee as a personification of that alliance. We may have differences with the leaders, we may criticise one another, we grant everyone the right to criticise us and claim that right for ourselves; we make no secret of our dissensions; we extend the warmest welcome to the delegates of the English miners, but this does not mean that differences may not exist between us and the representatives of the miners; their political view of life is quite unknown to us, but the fact that delegates have been sent is in itself a pledge of the alliance between the workers of the Soviet Union and the English workers. We are in favour of the Anglo-Russian Committee being granted far more independence. We would wish that the Congress at Bournemouth would give expression to a desire for greater activity on the part of the Anglo-Russian Committee, not only in the question of negotiations between the Amsterdamers and the Russian trade unions and the Profintern, but also in the extremely important questions of the international trade union movement, in the questions of the danger of war and the offensive of capital, in the question of the harmonizing of all necessary action on all the battle-fronts of the working class. I believe that the workers of Great Britain have sufficiently grasped the importance and the necessity of the alliance with our workers; it represents a pledge of the unity of the international labour movement, a real fighting unity based on mutual help, on a common struggle, on mutual solidarity.

The Fraternal Alliance is no Empty Phrase.

I believe, comrades, that the English miners and the German women workers who are present in this hall will be convinced, quite independently of the political differences which may possibly exist between us, that for our workers, for the workers of the Soviet Union, to whatever nation they may belong, the cause ci the fraternal alliance is no plaything, no empty phrase. The fraternal alliance is a proletarian fighting alliance, the fraternal alliance is preparedness to make sacrifices, preparedness to tight, preparedness for mutual support. I am convinced that the delegates here present regardless of their political differences of opinion, will return to their own countries convinced that an alliance of this kind, if it embraced the workers of all countries, would guarantee a victory over the offensive of capital. They will return to their homes with the conviction that our workers will stand up for a unity of this kind; that our workers have not carried out a national revolution, that they regard their work as the beginning of the emancipation of the whole international proletariat, that the Russian workers are prepared for every sacrifice in order to bring about a real and complete emancipation of their class brothers, not in 360 years and not through ballot papers, but by active revolutionary class struggle. Of this we are convinced, for this we fight, for this we make sacrifices and we are always prepared to hasten to the succor of our class brothers wherever there is a tight between labour and capital. (Loud applause.)

International Press Correspondence, widely known as”Inprecorr” was published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International (ECCI) regularly in German and English, occasionally in many other languages, beginning in 1921 and lasting in English until 1938. Inprecorr’s role was to supply translated articles to the English-speaking press of the International from the Comintern’s different sections, as well as news and statements from the ECCI. Many ‘Daily Worker’ and ‘Communist’ articles originated in Inprecorr, and it also published articles by American comrades for use in other countries. It was published at least weekly, and often thrice weekly.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1926/v06n64-sep-30-1926-Inprecor.pdf

PDF of full issue 2: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/inprecor/1926/v06n65-oct-07-1926-Inprecor.pdf